*Click here for Friday A.M. Quickie.
*Click here for NFL Week 7 Preview.
The worst World Series team ever: Is that really the Cardinals? That's a bold claim (made by, among others, Thomas Boswell), but you all know I'm a sucker for the superlative. And that would certainly qualify.
I'll leave it to the experts, analysts and historians to battle that out -- it bolsters the case that the Cards have the second-worst record ever for a World Series team (just a game ahead of the '73 Mets).
Though I was extremely sympathetic to the Mets' cause, there's something appealing about the fact that, less than a month ago, the Cards were on the brink of the worst miss-the-playoffs collapse in MLB history. And yet here they are.
The Cards' run confirms the playoff-success-as-random theory (most recently explained by a certain Cards fan-slash-sports blogger who must be plenty happy today).
How fitting that the signature moment of an NLCS won by the Cards is a did-you-see-that play by the OTHER team -- Endy Chavez's HR-saving catch over the wall.
Or that the second-biggest signature moment came from the light-hitting catcher, when Yadier Molina provided the winning margin in the top of the 9th.
Or that the NLCS MVP was an otherwise forgettable pitcher, Jeff Suppan, who went 7 IP allowing only 2 hits and 1 run -- his second straight clutch performance in an NLCS Game 7. Speaking of superlatives:
That arguably crowns him the NL's top big-game playoff pitcher of our era. Try to find a player who tops "won 2 NLCS Game 7s in 3 years."
(I'd say the only pitcher who could top him is Randy Johnson in 2001, but that was just for Unit's work in one series; Suppan did it in two different series over three years -- in the first, beating Roger Clemens and in the second, stifling his league's top offense.)
What about the Mets? As will be pointed out today, it was their offense that failed them, not their pitching, as originally predicted. (Shows what the "experts" know.)
Between the payroll and the talent, I have no doubt they'll be back in the playoffs a year from now – the NL East's equivalent of the metronomic Cardinals?
I'm sure the Mets' offseason focus will be on pitching -- whose won't? -- but it's worth noting that these final two games were anchored by lightly regarded cast-offs, not pricey imports.
Now, about that World Series: I'm not buying that the week off will slow the Tigers' momentum; as has been pointed out, the White Sox had five days off between last year's ALCS and the World Series.
As I point out below, this is a hugely intriguing series: The winner will either be a team completing the greatest turnaround in MLB history (Tigers) or a team that is arguably the worst champ in MLB history. (Cards) Either way, superlative-lovers rejoice!
Much like the Cards' fate in 2004, I predict another hard-fought 7-game NLCS title yields a World Series sweep to a Team of Destiny.
The Tigers have too much pitching, too much hitting, too much Leyland and too much mojo on their side.
Tigers in 4.
So, for the Comments section, a few suggested topics (though by all means, say whatever you want):
(1) Are these Cards the worst World Series team ever? If not, then who?
(2) Where does Suppan's performance and history put him among all-time NL clutch pitchers?
(3) What's your outlook for the World Series and why? Who are the biggest X-factors?
I'm traveling this morning, so I might not be able to post until later. See below for the usual Friday A.M. Quickie and the NFL Week 7 picks.
-- D.S.
Posts
56 comments:
Cards are defintely in the discussion for worst W.S. team of the *ESPN* era. Other teams that come to mind:
- 1984 Padres - if Alan Wiggins is important, you're in trouble
- 2000 Mets - the team had no soul - Piazza is still afraid to charge the mound.
- The 1988 Dodgers - Hershiser, Gibson and who?
World Series - Tigers in Six. Hoping for another Suppan on 3rd moment.
Worst champ ever belongs to the 1987 Twins. Yes, they had Kirby Puckett (HOFer) and Bert Blyleven (should be HOFer) and a few solid players, but they could not win on the road, and only home-field throughout the playoffs allowed them to win.
Thus, we had Al Michaels continuously pointing out "they won when they had to."
Like Willie said, you gotta tip your hat to the Cards. Who gives a flying F if the cards are the worst world series team ever (although, aside from their record, how can you really argue this? They have a guy who is always in the discussion for the best player in the game; potentially the MVP and Cy Young from the same team; I'd put the 2002 Giants on the same level, as well as those keithsrk listed above)?
Anyway, like all Mets fans, I am depressed this morning. But I was thinking, I'm glad I didn't shell out 200 bucks for game 7 tix, not that I could have afforded it. I have a couple of buds who were at the game last night; haven't talked to them yet, but I cannot imagine how depressing the 7 train was last night. Coming home, in the rain (and en masse; at least when the Yanks lost game 7 to the BoSox a few years ago, it was a blowout, so people were filing out over the course of a couple of innings, and they had more than one train to choose from. And it wasn't raining.)
Good luck, Cards...
See, here's the problem with interleague play. Detroit has ALREADY swept St. Louis this year.
(Part of Det-Chi-Min-Bos's who-can-sweep-the-NL competition earlier this year.)
I liken Endy Chavez's catch with Dwight Evans's from 1975 (which ALSO led to a double play). It wouldn't surprise me if ESPN's mentioning other catches instead, as to downplay that it was their own beloved Joe Morgan hitting into it.
I'm not old enough to remember '73, so for my lifetime it's the '87 Twins. Now THERE'S a reason not to just alternate home-field advantage.
One part of me thinks it would be awesome if the Cards won...
but i hate the Cards...
if they win, LaRussa will have his own channel on geniuses...
Though perhaps it would stop the 'AAAA' comments.
Tigers in 5
The '73 Mets finished the regular season with an 82-79 record, winning the NL East on the last weekend of the season, a weekend where FIVE teams entered still in contention. Then they held off the stinkin' Cincinnati Reds and Bud Harrelson took on Pete Rose. Then they came oh-so-close to knocking off the Oakland A's in the middle of their 3-year run.
A side note: Back then, a team only needed three starting pitchers. A starter would pitch games 1, 4, and 7 of the series. No whining about "only 3 days rest." They pitched... and they liked it.
Just a quick thought here...
Can they really be the "Worst WS Team Ever" if they have the presumptive favorite for NL Cy Young and the guy who will either be #1 or #2 for League MVP (and the guys who won the award last year as well)?
Sure all the talk is about Detroit smoking the Cards in four (or five, if we're "lucky"). But if Chris Carpenter can return to form, and FAST, they wil at least put up a fight.
If Carpenter can be a solid Game 2 starter (and Game 6, if necessary) the Cards have a shot.
If not, well, I still have 11 more Patriots' games to look forward to.
And apologies to nyc-steelers fan - didn't see that you had made some of the same points above.
Great points. Very well thought out and articulated.
:)
Tigers in 5, because the Cards offense will wake up for one game. Pujols has to get his smack in somewhere.
Tigers in 4 or 5, I haven't decided yet. Detroit is positioned to be build like last year's White Sox team, good pitching, solid defense, timely hitting. They will get guys on base and frustrate the Cardinals.
I'm not sure the Cardinals are the worst WS team ever. Yes they were on the brink of the greatest collapse ever, but you have to think what put them into that position? This team was awful down the stretch and won 83 games, almost blowing that 10 game lead. If they had gone .500 over that stretch, they win the division easily by 6 or 7 games and finish with close to 90 wins.
The only reason people are saying the worst WS team ever is because of the final two weeks of the season. The Tigers blew their division in the final weekend by getting swept by the ROYALS!...AT HOME!!!
And the arguement that the Tigers had already clinched a playoff spot doesn't really stand up because for all intensive purposes, so hadn't the Cardinals. They made it more interesting at the end by playing like crap, but this is a team that still could have won 90 games. And don't forget, the MVP of the team (if not the NL) Pujoles missed 3-4 weeks as well.
This Cardinals team is not as bad as everyone says they were. They are more experienced when it comes to the WS than the Tigers are as well. This will be more of a series than people think. Tigers in 7.
2001: Diamondbacks (heavy underdog)
2002: Angels (50-50)
2003: Marlins (semi-heavy underdog)
2004: Red Sox (underdog, Cards had a lot of wins last year)
2005: White Sox (50-50, think about that pitching that the Astros had)
What I'm trying to say is that everyone thinks that this series is going to be a beat down. I implore you to check out the 1990 World Series. No one thought the Reds had a chance against the heavily favored A's and it turned out to be one of the biggest upsets ever (even though the Reds went wire-to-wire). So don't be surprised if the Cardinals win.
That being said...Tigers in 5. Ha!
Just thought of something...
If the Tigers manage to sweep the Cards, it will be twelve straight World Series games won by AL teams, going back to the Marlins winning the Series in '03.
Pretty impressive. Probably some type of a record. Anybody got the Elias Sports Bureau on speed dial?
Are the Mets the MOST. OVERRATED. TEAM. EVER.? Quite possibly. Though there has to be at least 1 Atlanta Braves division winner since their string of titles starting in 1991 that can top the Metropolitans' playoff dud of '06.
At any rate, all you need to know about the World Series is what most prognasticators (including our boy Dan Shanoff) are predicting. Tigers in 4. Which means I'll put money on the Cards in a 7-game classic. Seriously, you know it's Murphy's Law at work when every "expert" (and novice) pick a team to absolutely destroy their opponent that the exact opposite will become reality.
But looking at reality, I too am taking the Tigers, but I have to give a little consideration to St. Louis. Afterall, they do have 2005 Cy Young winner Chris Carpenter and 2x NLCS hero/ace Jeff Suppan pitching for them. Figure they get 3 starts between them in the WS and they should at least get 1 win out of it. Too bad the Tigers can match them pitcher for pitcher with Rogers, Verlander, Bonderman, and Robertson lined up in the rotation (and a deadly bullpen), the Tigers can certainly make the case for the sweep.
But give the Cards some credit for: a) getting here and 2) having WS experience to toughen them to the critics calling for the brooms.
I say: Tigers in 5. (Hey, call me a rebel.)
rob (warwick)
Re-match of the 68 World Series. Maybe the Cardinals have revenge on their minds for that loss.. LOL Seriously though, I think the Tigers will win, but more likely in 6 games. You know the big bats of St. Louis are going to have to wake up for at least one game, and I would expect one of their pitchers to throw a gem of a game. I think all in all it will be a fun series to watch.
And I am not buying into them as being one of the worst WS teams ever. Pujols missed a good chunk of the season, Edmonds missed almost the last month? So what if they backed into the playoffs, every single year we see the same story where a team slumps at the end and then goes on an amazing run. Nobody wanted to crown the White Sox last year as one of the worst ever, even though they almost had just as epic of a collapse the last month of the season.
And to be fair, if the Cards to pull the upset, will any of this talk be remembered come MLB playoffs next year? Doubt it.
How come nobody complains when a pitcher is named the MVP of a post-season series, yet you hear all these arguments during the regular season about why pitchers aren't worthy?
Suppan's performance this last week is exactly why pitchers SHOULD be considered. Over any five-game span, a daily player bats maybe 22 times and makes maybe 25 plays in the field. Let's say he reaches base 9 times and maybe 3 of his fielding plays are more than "routine." That's 12 times he's positively affected play in five days. A good pitcher might go 7 innings a game, getting 21 outs. He's positively affected 21 plays in 5 days. 21>12. I'm glad the post-season awards recognize and reward the value of pitchers!
First of all, any team with Albert Pujols on it cannot be the worst World Series team ever.
Anyway, not that it really matters, but did anyone else noticed that Waintwright MISSED on his last pitch to Beltran?
Molina called for it to be low (on the ground) by tapping the plate a couple times below, which is generally the sign for calling for one low and out of the zone.
It obviously worked out fine, but I thought it was interesting all the same.
Did anyone else pick up on that?
intents and purposes.
keithsrk -
Geeeez, give the Tigers a little credit! The '06 Cards and '84 Padres are on your Top 4 Worst WS Teams of All Time list? Rough.
Are the Mets the MOST. OVERRATED. TEAM. EVER.?
Um, considering the Yankees had a higher payroll and were heavy favorites to win it all and yet lost in the first round, the Mets weren't even the most overrated team of these playoffs.
If the Tigers can sweep, that would make it 11 games in a row since dropping game 1 to the yanks - has that ever happened?
john (ann arbor), if the "intents and purposes" is for me then thanks, I couldn't remember what the correct saying was.
And I believe the record is 8 games in a row, shared the the 04 Red Sox and one other team. Though I'm not completely sure.
DanShan predicted (1) Padres in a sweep, (2) Mets in 4 or 5 (I can't remember which), and now a Detroit sweep.
My response to (1), Dan would rue, RUE, I said.
To (2) Dan would eat those words just as he ate (1).
Now the WS has me concerned for my beloved Cards since there offense has been terrible and the Tigers pitching has been awesome.
But come on, we got a win from Freaking Jeff Weaver! Did anyone think THAT would happen? Not I.
And this goes out to my now least favorite FOX Sports Radio host, Bruce Jacobs (weekend evenings). Mr. Jacoff, the "Crudinals" just stomach punched your Mets, and "Fleckstein" and the rest are going to the WS. I can't believe FSR would put a dick like this on the radio.
I disagree that the Cards are the worst WS team of the ESPN era.
I do think that they ran into some division opponents at the wrong time. The cards caught my Cubbies when they were hot early (very early) in the season. The cards played the Reds when they were flirting with the division lead. And the Cards ran into the Astro Buzzsaw at the end of the season.
Plus, the Brewcrew played tough most of the year. With that said, i still think the Tigers will win in 4, i just want to make the contention that the Cards are not as bad as everyone thinks. They just caught the wrong teams at the wrong time during the season.
First off, I just want to say that I can already see the headlines a couple days after the World Series is over-
LEAST. WATCHED. WORLD SERIES. EVER.
Why? Because we have two teams from the midwest, of course. No teams from NY, no Boston, no CA teams. Which means that the most important big market teams are out and "have no interest." Fox will probably compensate by having some third rate broadcasting crew....
Whew- got that out of the way...
The Cardinals the worst team ever? As someone pointed out earlier, a lot of the winners since the wild card was enacted weren't necessarily the "BEST" team of their league, and the "BEST" team in the league doesn't always get to the WS. All the so-called great Yankee teams that didn't make it. Or the Mariners team that won 119 games. So now, with the wild card, you really can't say that the "BEST" teams are in the World Series, as it is more hotness than anything, just like the Final Four.
And to all you '87 Twins-haters- Frankie Viola, Bert Blyleven, Jeff Reardon, Kent Hrbek, Kirby Puckett, Don Baylor, Gary Gaetti, and Tom Brunansky in their primes and Tommy Kelly before he got cranky. Give these guys an unbalanced schedule and all, and they have a much better record...
Lance, I think the argument for a regular season pitcher as MVP has merit (in extreme cases), but at the same time, I think there is a distinctly different tone to being dominant for 1 or 2 starts in an LCS or WS that warrants higher MVP consideration to pitchers due to thrusting your team into the WS (from the LCS) or becoming champion.
Fox will probably compensate by having some third rate broadcasting crew
So, you're expecting a step up from the Cardinals homeboys, Buck and McCarver?
'06 Cards the worst? No. I agree with the '87 Twins. How many road games did Kelly's Heroes win in the playoffs that year?
Honest Card fan point: Moral Victory for St. Louis is pushing it to six games. But this team is the oddest bunch to get a read on I've ever seen.
X-Factor: Pujols. He can't not show in two consecutive series.
X-Factor the sequel: Cardinal starters not named Weaver or Suppan.
And someone needs to decide this once and for all, was Buck and McCarver STL-homers or NYM-homers? There was plenty of complaining from both sides and both sides can't be right.
World Series Streaks:
NYY - 9 games - '98 G1-'00 G1
NYY - 9 games - '37 G5-'39 G4
NYY/NYY/PHI - 10 games - '27 G1-'29 G2
What about '98 Padres as worst WS team?
Well, earlier this week I said the Bears would crush the 'Cardinals'. Now I'm thinking the Tigers will crush the Cardinals. hmmmm..
I predict STL with a 3 game lead in the series followed by tigers defense pulling the series out of there ass, while a violent LaRussa rampages about "THE TIGERS ARE WHO WE THOUGHT THEY WERE!!!!, YOU WANT TO CROWN THEM, THEN CROWN THEIR ASS!!!!
Does that one ever get old?
The common arguement against a pitcher for MVP in the regular season is because of the Cy Young award, which is basically the MVP award for pitchers. In the LCS's and the WS there is only one award, the MVP. Two completely different situations. So you can't argue that because a pitcher can win the MVP of an LCS one can win the MVP for the regular season.
That being said, I think that excluding pitchers from MVP debates because they can win the CY Young is crap.
Maybe pitchers can be Series MVPs because they can singlehandedly win 2 out of 4, i.e., 50% of the games their teams need to advance/win (literally singlehandedly, in NL parks).
On the other hand, no playoff-bound team will feature a pitcher who was responsible for even 30% of their regular-season wins (let's say 27-out-of-90?), ever again.
Is my math unassailably brilliantly correct, or is anyone going to continue to ignore this obvious fact?
Tigers in 5, why? Look at the projected pitching matchups:
Game 1: Marquis/Reyes vs. Verlander
Game 2: Weaver vs. Rogers
Game 3: Carpenter vs. Robertson
Game 4: Suppan vs. Bonderman
My thoughts
Game 1: Tigers, easily
Game 2: Tigers, but closer than you may think
Game 3: St. Louis, but closer than you may think (Carpenter hasn't put up Cy Young numbers in the playoffs, yet).
Game 4: In my mind this is the key game, it should make the series 3-1 or 2-2, Detroit takes it and finishes them off in 5.
i agree with Padres of '98, they sucked.
Plus i wasn't too thrilled with the Astros last year. what was the average player age of that team 104? with a closer who lost his confidence after getting smacked by the monster homerun by A-Poo?
I think the only way you see a pitcher win season MVP honors in todays day and age is to see a pitcher get 30 wins, and that teams goes to the playoffs. That may be enough to sway voters to give a pitcher the MVP award. The only other thought would be some closers deserve consideration, such as Mariano Rivera in his prime.. but since he never won it, I don't see it happening.
Was anyone else upset that this see-saw battle of a series ended on an anti-climatic note? Taking a called third strike with the bases loaded in the 9th inning of the seventh game is a mortal sin! I could see (possibly), if he was looking for a curveball, and got the heat instead; then he would have no time to react. Obviously he was looking for a fast ball, so he should have had time to react to the curve. Looking at the slow motion reply, he didn't even consider swinging at that pitch. I hate to use the "C" word, but why else would he do NOTHING in that situation?
The fact that the '84 Padres were terrible doesn't take anything away from how great the 84 Tigers were. 2nd most dominant team of the last 30 years (after the '98 Yakees). Whitaker, Trammell, Gibson, Parrish, Herndon, Lemon, Garbey, Evans, etc. with Morris, Petry, and Milt's career year. A great team - but the 84 Padres were not a good test for them.
I'm also on the '87 Twins were pretty good bandwagon. There was alot of talent on that team - I don't think they belong in the worst WS team discussion.
The Padres of '98 weren't great - but they did get a HUGE year from Kevin Brown, Ken Steroid Caminitti (sp?) was MVP, Gwynn was still a great player, and they had Tevor as well. Definitely better than this year's Cards.
KirkMack said... "And to all you '87 Twins-haters- Frankie Viola, Bert Blyleven, Jeff Reardon, Kent Hrbek, Kirby Puckett, Don Baylor, Gary Gaetti, and Tom Brunansky in their primes and Tommy Kelly before he got cranky. Give these guys an unbalanced schedule and all, and they have a much better record..."
I agree. If they played every game at home, the record would have been much better. But that's not the way it works, is it?
RevScottDeMangeMD said... "I implore you to check out the 1990 World Series. No one thought the Reds had a chance against the heavily favored A's and it turned out to be one of the biggest upsets ever (even though the Reds went wire-to-wire)."
Don't forget, the ex-Cub factor was at work, tripping up the A's.
This probably carried over to the this year's Mets, because guess who played second for those A's?
Willie Randolph.
From Simmons' NFL column today: "The whole 'whatever happened five minutes ago was teh biggest thing that ever happened' school of making sports arguments has to be one of the most annoying sports media trends of this decade."
Umm, Dan - I think he was talking about you. Tough to disagree with him, either.
I hate to use the "C" word, but why else would he do NOTHING in that situation?
It's the core problem for a batter with breaking balls. If the ball breaks, you're going to swing too high and either miss entirely or ground out weakly. If it doesn't break, well, in this situation it's Ball 2. Then, of course, there's the 1 in 20 chance of guessing where the ball is going to be and doing something besides popping up.
Ooooh, Simmons - 1, Shanoff - 0
Shanoff, take the bait! This would be an awesome battle.. keep it on paper though, don't turn it into a rap beef!
I'd put the Padres of '84 as the worst World Series team ever.
And I'd just like to point out that the 1-12 highest payrolls in the MLB are not playing right now.
Please, won't somebody notice?
And will people PLEASE stop praising Bill Simmons?
"Look at me, I'm cracking on people and that makes me famous!"
Talk about a lame-ass trend...people like Simmons getting promoted. THAT'S a lame-ass trend.
Two things:
One, the specific comment Bill was referencing was not made by Dan. Therefore, the idea that Simmons was specifically attacking Shanoff over the Cardinals is wrong.
Two, last I checked, everyone's entitled to their opinion.
I like both Simmons and Shanoff, can't we please focus on the real evil in this world? Brent Musberger.
I'd put the Padres of '84 as the worst World Series team ever.
And Cubs fans everywhere curse loudly and punch their monitors.
Biggest question: can the Cards steal a game? I can't believe anyone is picking the Cards to actually win the series.
I think it'll be a carbon copy of the 2001 NBA Finals--Cards win game one, everyone thinks 'Holy shit maybe we were wrong,' and then the Tigers throw a beat down in games 2-5.
Le-on Dur-Ham clap clap clap-clap-clap
Le-on Dur-Ham clap clap clap-clap-clap
Le-on Dur-Ham clap clap clap-clap-clap
Luckily I'm a Cubs fan born in 83, so I'm immune to that. Start chanting Bernie Mac's name, however, and... yeah.
Why are you guys doing this? You are walking Detroit into the trap of the century. All this "how bad are Cards talk" is just setting up the "how did Tigers lose???" that will follow in 2 weeks. Stop it!!
So much for Tigers in 4.
They lost to Freaking (rookie) Anthony Reyes. (What's with that flat bill on his hat?)
GO CARDS!
Go Freaking Jeff Weaver!
So much for Tigers in 4.
They lost to Freaking (rookie) Anthony Reyes. (What's with that flat bill on his hat?)
GO CARDS!
Go Freaking Jeff Weaver!
Post a Comment