When last we checked, Jered Weaver wasn’t just leading the race for the 2011 American League Cy Young Award; he was running away with it. Despite Justin Verlander’s brilliance, Weaver had just been flat out better and his margin in my prediction formula was sizeable. In the senior circuit, Roy Halladay (surprise, surprise) was putting up the best numbers but in a shocker, Jair Jurrjens was giving him a good run for his money.
So where do we stand now that we’re about halfway through August with an average of 119 games in the books for each team?
Roy Halladay is still the best pitcher in the National League. His score of 148.4 is nearly ten points ahead of the second best starter in the NL (teammate Cole Hamels at 139.3). He is 15-4 with a 2.51 ERA, a 1.05 WHIP, an average GS of 62.6 (2nd best in the NL), and a strikeout to walk ratio of 7.76:1. However, there is one guy who can say that he’s actually pitched better than Halladay this year.
Johnny Cueto of the Reds is just 8-5 but his 1.94 ERA leads the Major Leagues and his ERA+ (adjusted for opponent’s and park factors) is a full 31 points ahead of Jered Weaver’s second best mark (205-174). So why is Cueto just over 16 points behind Halladay in third place in the NL Cy Young standings? Simple; innings pitched.
Cueto has thrown 120.1 innings and the last time I crunched these numbers, he wasn’t even among the qualifiers because he hadn’t thrown enough innings. By contract, Cole Hamels has thrown 172.0 innings and Halladay is tied for the NL lead in innings with Clayton Kershaw at 175.2. You can argue the merits of including something like innings pitched in a formula like this but in my view, it’s simple. The difference between Halladay and Cueto is 55.1 innings and 23 earned runs, which would come out to an ERA of 3.74. Considering that the league-wide ERA this year is 3.90, to match Halladay’s production the Reds need a reliever that can pitch roughly 5% above league average. That may not sound like much but when you consider that that is a decent workload for your average reliever, the Reds need an extra pitcher on their roster while the Phillies can use that roster spot for another position player.
That, in my opinion, is where the value of innings pitched comes in. Granted, if Halladay wasn’t pitching as well as he is, those innings wouldn’t be nearly as valuable but the fact remains; every inning he pitches is an inning that the Phillies bullpen doesn’t have to pitch. Come October when every inning and every pitch is so terribly important, the Phillies could very well have the freshest bullpen in the league. What is that worth in the time of year that every pitch is thrown at 110% and pitchers get tired faster?
Now that you’ve had a chance to think about the importance of innings pitched (especially when they are quality innings) think about this. So far this year, 13 pitchers have thrown more than 170 innings and the lowest average of innings per start in that group is Ian Kennedy at 6.8 innings per start. With the exception of Chris Carpenter (who ranks 38th) all of these pitchers also rank in the top 20 in my Cy Young Formula (out of 111 qualifying pitchers). There are only two teams that have more than one pitcher on this list and both teams have THREE pitchers with this many innings. It’s not too surprising that the Angels have hung around with the Rangers despite not having a great year; the trio of Jered Weaver, Dan Haren, and Ervin Santana have thrown that team on their back and carried them to where they are now, ten games above .500 and just three games behind the Rangers. Then there is the trio in Philadelphia who have predictably pitched very well but when you compare them to each other, it’s closer than you might think.
The Angels trio has combined to go 35-19 with a 2.88 ERA and a WHIP of 1.04. Those numbers for the trio of Halladay, Hamels, and Lee are 40-18, 2.65, and 1.04. The won-loss record difference is easily explained by the fact that the Phillies are on pace to be a historic team in terms of wins and losses while the Angels will be lucky to win 90 games. When you compare the per-game averages of the two trios, they are nearly indistinguishable.
Team-IP-H-R-ER-BB-K
GS
LAA-7.0-5.8-2.4-2.3-1.5-6.3
61.1
PHI-7.1-6.2-2.2-2.1-1.2-6.8
62.3
My entire point here is to say that even though the Phillies have been very good in the starting pitching department. The Angels have been nearly as good due to the emergence of Ervin Santana as a #3 pitcher. But is Jered Weaver the best pitcher in the AL?
At this point, not anymore.
A month and a half ago, Jered Weaver and Justin Verlander ranked 1st and 2nd, respectively, in the league in my Cy Young Formula. Today, they are still 1-2, just not in the same order. In some small ways, Jered Weaver has come back to the pack and Justin Verlander has pitched about the same. At the beginning of July, their core numbers looked like this:
Name: W-L, ERA, WHIP, IP, CYF
Weaver: 10-4, 1.92, 0.92, 131.1, 147.5
Verlander: 11-3, 2.32, 0.86, 135.2, 130.2
This is what those same numbers look like today.
Weaver: 14-6, 2.13, 0.97, 181.1, 179.9
Verlander: 17-5, 2.35, 0.87, 195.0, 189.8
Now this is really starting to split hairs between two starters having great years but soon enough the voters will have to do it as well. The only real differences are the margin in ERA and innings pitched. In July, Weaver’s lead in ERA was four tenths of a run and now that is down to 0.22 runs, just over half what it was. Six weeks ago, the innings pitched was practically a wash with Verlander having pitched 4.1 more. Today, that margin has increased to 13.2. When you add those up, along with Verlander’s overall brilliance and higher strikeout totals, that has led to more than a 27 point swing in the Cy Young Formula.
I know that it seems simplistic to break down the AL Cy Young race to two pitchers but before you start spouting the case of any other pitcher, consider this; the next highest ranked AL pitcher is CC Sabathia but the formula gives him only 144.3 points, drastically behind both Weaver and Verlander. This is the definition of a two horse race.
Showing posts with label Cliff Lee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cliff Lee. Show all posts
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Starting Rotations
Much has been made of the pitching rotation that General Manager Ruben Amaro Jr. has assembled in Philadelphia. Between Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, Roy Oswalt, and Cole Hamels, they came into this season with a career record of 481-275 with an ERA of 3.42, a WHIP of 1.20, and 141.7 combined Wins Above Replacement (WAR). They have won 3 Cy Young awards (Lee in ’08 and Halladay in ’03 and ’10) and have been named to a combined 13 All-Star games.
Perhaps more importantly than all of that, these four have combined for a record of 20-8 with a 2.98 ERA in the playoffs. They have pitched a total of 240.0 innings and have allowed just 196 hits with a K/BB ratio of 220:52.
In other words, these guys are good. Where will they rank among the all-time greatest pitching rotations? Obviously this is a question that cannot be answered until October or November but there’s no reason we can’t look ahead at the task that they have in front of them.
Currently, these four have combined for 5.0 WAR with Halladay leading the way with 2.1. Given the accuracy of the WAR values (only accurate to the tenth of a win) and the fact that these numbers don’t necessarily project to over a full season, these figures need to be taken with a grain of salt.
If they did project well, this is where they would end up.
Roy Halladay – 10.6
Cole Hamels – 7.1
Cliff Lee – 4.6
Roy Oswalt – 3.0
Roy Oswalt has only pitched 27.0 innings thus far, compared with at least 40.2 for any of the other three pitchers. Due to the tornados ravaging the area that he grew up in, he has been away from the team and hasn’t pitched as often as he would have. However, once he sets his affairs in order and rejoins the team, it wouldn’t be outside the realm of possibility for all four of these pitchers to end up with a WAR value greater than 4.0. As a rule of thumb, according to baseball-reference.com (where I get these WAR values) this is a good way to judge how good WAR values are.
0-2 – Bench Player
2-5 – Starter
5-8 – All-Star
8+ - MVP
According to that metric, their rotation is made up of an MVP caliber player (or a Cy Young caliber pitcher), an All-Star, a borderline All-Star, and a decent starting pitcher.
We’ve been hearing about this rotation ever since Cliff Lee shocked everyone and signed with them instead of the Rangers or Yankees but what does this mean historically? How many other teams have ever had a combination of starters this good? To answer this question, first I need to set a few criteria. First of all, I only looked at pitchers who started at least 60% of their games and qualified for the ERA title. Given that this means they would have pitched at least as many innings as team games played (162 for most years) and that at least 3/5 of their appearances would have had to be starts, this effectively eliminates relievers from this conversation. Secondly, I only looked at pitchers who put forth better than 4.0 WAR. When I got the results from this search for the all-time best rotations, I didn’t want (for instance) the 2001 Diamondbacks cluttering my data. They did have one of the best 1-2 punches ever in Randy Johnson (8.4 WAR) and Curt Schilling (7.3). However, after that, they dropped down to Brian Anderson (-0.8 WAR), the only other pitcher who qualified under these criteria.
So, to ask the question again, how many rotations had this many good pitchers?
Not too many. Since 1901, 81 teams have had three pitchers with better than 4.0 WAR. Of those, only 5 had four pitchers who crossed that threshold. Of the 76 teams with three pitchers matching these criteria, the 1909 Chicago Cubs were the best, when Mordecai Brown (8.7), Orval Overall (7.1), and Ed Reulbach (5.5) combined for 21.3 WAR. Only four other rotations in the past 110 years have crossed the 20.0 WAR barrier:
1956 Cleveland Indians (21.2)
Early Wynn (8.2)
Herb Score (7.6)
Bob Lemon (5.4)
1969 Chicago Cubs (21.1)
Bill Hands (8.8)
Fergie Jenkins (7.6)
Ken Holtzman (4.7)
1904 New York Giants (20.8)
Joe Mcginnity (10.2)
Christy Mathewson (6.1)
Dummy Taylor (4.5)
1915 St. Louis Terriers (20.3)
Dave Davenport (9.0)
Eddie Plank (6.7)
Doc Crandall (4.6)
These are the five rotations that have featured four different starters with better than 4.0 WAR.
1912 Boston Red Sox (24.1)
Smoky Joe Wood (9.6)
Buck O’Brien (5.3)
Ray Collins (5.1)
Hugh Bedient (4.1)
1991 Atlanta Braves (20.9)
Tom Glavine (7.4)
John Smoltz (4.7)
Steve Avery (4.5)
Charlie Liebrandt (4.3)
1997 Atlanta Braves (20.9)
Greg Maddux (7.3)
Tom Glavine (5.0)
John Smoltz (4.5)
Denny Neagle (4.1)
1913 New York Giants (20.9)
Christy Mathewson (6.8)
Rube Marquard (5.1)
Jeff Tesreau (5.0)
Al Demaree (4.0)
1967 Cincinnati Reds (20.7)
Gary Nolan (6.8)
Mel Queen (4.9)
Jim Maloney (4.7)
Milt Pappas (4.3)
Clearly, if Oswalt were to increase his performance and everyone else were to maintain their current paces, this rotation can easily go down as one of the best in baseball history.
To go a little bit further, let’s raise the WAR threshold a bit. The cutoff that b-r.com uses between a starter and an All-Star is 5.0 WAR so let’s go ahead and throw that number in. How many rotations have had three starters who have all produced more than 5.0 WAR?
Only 11 but these must come with a caveat. 6 of these 11 occurred between 1907 and 1913. Since 1920 (the widely accepted beginning of the live ball era) only 5 rotations have had three All-Star caliber starting pitchers. The best of those five live ball rotations was the 1956 Cleveland Indians (see above). However, there is another metric that I have to bring in here. ERA+ takes into account many things, including the opponents and the ballpark and how easy or difficult it is to pitch in that particular park in that particular year. Again, taking these ERA+ values and simply averaging them is problematic but it gives a snapshot of how good these rotations were when their numbers are normalized for the era in which they played. Of these 11 rotations, the best in terms of average ERA+ was the 2005 Houston Astros, featuring Roy Oswalt (2.94 ERA, 5.3 WAR, and 144 ERA+), Andy Pettitte (2.39, 5.8, and 177), and best of all, Roger Clemens (1.87, 7.2, and 226). This again illustrates the point that while the raw pitching numbers looked better way back when, it’s sometimes more impressive what the best pitchers are able to go in an era that heavily favors the hitters.
To wrap this all up, does the Phillies rotation have a chance to join these groups? Frankly, yes they do. All of them have had seasons of better than 4.0 WAR (Halladay 7, Oswalt 5, Hamels 3, and Lee 2) and their career highs, respectively, are 7.5, 6.2, 4.8, and 7.3.
It will be interesting to see where they end up after another five months of pitching…
Perhaps more importantly than all of that, these four have combined for a record of 20-8 with a 2.98 ERA in the playoffs. They have pitched a total of 240.0 innings and have allowed just 196 hits with a K/BB ratio of 220:52.
In other words, these guys are good. Where will they rank among the all-time greatest pitching rotations? Obviously this is a question that cannot be answered until October or November but there’s no reason we can’t look ahead at the task that they have in front of them.
Currently, these four have combined for 5.0 WAR with Halladay leading the way with 2.1. Given the accuracy of the WAR values (only accurate to the tenth of a win) and the fact that these numbers don’t necessarily project to over a full season, these figures need to be taken with a grain of salt.
If they did project well, this is where they would end up.
Roy Halladay – 10.6
Cole Hamels – 7.1
Cliff Lee – 4.6
Roy Oswalt – 3.0
Roy Oswalt has only pitched 27.0 innings thus far, compared with at least 40.2 for any of the other three pitchers. Due to the tornados ravaging the area that he grew up in, he has been away from the team and hasn’t pitched as often as he would have. However, once he sets his affairs in order and rejoins the team, it wouldn’t be outside the realm of possibility for all four of these pitchers to end up with a WAR value greater than 4.0. As a rule of thumb, according to baseball-reference.com (where I get these WAR values) this is a good way to judge how good WAR values are.
0-2 – Bench Player
2-5 – Starter
5-8 – All-Star
8+ - MVP
According to that metric, their rotation is made up of an MVP caliber player (or a Cy Young caliber pitcher), an All-Star, a borderline All-Star, and a decent starting pitcher.
We’ve been hearing about this rotation ever since Cliff Lee shocked everyone and signed with them instead of the Rangers or Yankees but what does this mean historically? How many other teams have ever had a combination of starters this good? To answer this question, first I need to set a few criteria. First of all, I only looked at pitchers who started at least 60% of their games and qualified for the ERA title. Given that this means they would have pitched at least as many innings as team games played (162 for most years) and that at least 3/5 of their appearances would have had to be starts, this effectively eliminates relievers from this conversation. Secondly, I only looked at pitchers who put forth better than 4.0 WAR. When I got the results from this search for the all-time best rotations, I didn’t want (for instance) the 2001 Diamondbacks cluttering my data. They did have one of the best 1-2 punches ever in Randy Johnson (8.4 WAR) and Curt Schilling (7.3). However, after that, they dropped down to Brian Anderson (-0.8 WAR), the only other pitcher who qualified under these criteria.
So, to ask the question again, how many rotations had this many good pitchers?
Not too many. Since 1901, 81 teams have had three pitchers with better than 4.0 WAR. Of those, only 5 had four pitchers who crossed that threshold. Of the 76 teams with three pitchers matching these criteria, the 1909 Chicago Cubs were the best, when Mordecai Brown (8.7), Orval Overall (7.1), and Ed Reulbach (5.5) combined for 21.3 WAR. Only four other rotations in the past 110 years have crossed the 20.0 WAR barrier:
1956 Cleveland Indians (21.2)
Early Wynn (8.2)
Herb Score (7.6)
Bob Lemon (5.4)
1969 Chicago Cubs (21.1)
Bill Hands (8.8)
Fergie Jenkins (7.6)
Ken Holtzman (4.7)
1904 New York Giants (20.8)
Joe Mcginnity (10.2)
Christy Mathewson (6.1)
Dummy Taylor (4.5)
1915 St. Louis Terriers (20.3)
Dave Davenport (9.0)
Eddie Plank (6.7)
Doc Crandall (4.6)
These are the five rotations that have featured four different starters with better than 4.0 WAR.
1912 Boston Red Sox (24.1)
Smoky Joe Wood (9.6)
Buck O’Brien (5.3)
Ray Collins (5.1)
Hugh Bedient (4.1)
1991 Atlanta Braves (20.9)
Tom Glavine (7.4)
John Smoltz (4.7)
Steve Avery (4.5)
Charlie Liebrandt (4.3)
1997 Atlanta Braves (20.9)
Greg Maddux (7.3)
Tom Glavine (5.0)
John Smoltz (4.5)
Denny Neagle (4.1)
1913 New York Giants (20.9)
Christy Mathewson (6.8)
Rube Marquard (5.1)
Jeff Tesreau (5.0)
Al Demaree (4.0)
1967 Cincinnati Reds (20.7)
Gary Nolan (6.8)
Mel Queen (4.9)
Jim Maloney (4.7)
Milt Pappas (4.3)
Clearly, if Oswalt were to increase his performance and everyone else were to maintain their current paces, this rotation can easily go down as one of the best in baseball history.
To go a little bit further, let’s raise the WAR threshold a bit. The cutoff that b-r.com uses between a starter and an All-Star is 5.0 WAR so let’s go ahead and throw that number in. How many rotations have had three starters who have all produced more than 5.0 WAR?
Only 11 but these must come with a caveat. 6 of these 11 occurred between 1907 and 1913. Since 1920 (the widely accepted beginning of the live ball era) only 5 rotations have had three All-Star caliber starting pitchers. The best of those five live ball rotations was the 1956 Cleveland Indians (see above). However, there is another metric that I have to bring in here. ERA+ takes into account many things, including the opponents and the ballpark and how easy or difficult it is to pitch in that particular park in that particular year. Again, taking these ERA+ values and simply averaging them is problematic but it gives a snapshot of how good these rotations were when their numbers are normalized for the era in which they played. Of these 11 rotations, the best in terms of average ERA+ was the 2005 Houston Astros, featuring Roy Oswalt (2.94 ERA, 5.3 WAR, and 144 ERA+), Andy Pettitte (2.39, 5.8, and 177), and best of all, Roger Clemens (1.87, 7.2, and 226). This again illustrates the point that while the raw pitching numbers looked better way back when, it’s sometimes more impressive what the best pitchers are able to go in an era that heavily favors the hitters.
To wrap this all up, does the Phillies rotation have a chance to join these groups? Frankly, yes they do. All of them have had seasons of better than 4.0 WAR (Halladay 7, Oswalt 5, Hamels 3, and Lee 2) and their career highs, respectively, are 7.5, 6.2, 4.8, and 7.3.
It will be interesting to see where they end up after another five months of pitching…
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
World Series Preview
Six of the seven series are in the books for the 2010 postseason and through some fluke of luck, I’m still batting .500. The Rays were the only team to defy my predictions in the division series and then both the Yankees and Phillies, looking to provide the first World Series rematch in back-to-back years since 1977 and 1978 when the Yankees beat the Dodgers 4-2 in both years, fell flat in their respective LCS, managing just two wins.
So, it is time to admit that yes, after years of frustrations and records propped up by playing in one of the weakest divisions in baseball, the Rangers are for real. It can all be traced back to July 9th when they were bold and daring and audacious and said that no matter how good they were (50-36, 4.5 games ahead of second place) they could be better. That was the day that they acquired former Cy Young winner Cliff Lee from the last place Seattle Mariners and despite struggling their way to a 90-72 regular season record, they had all the pieces in place for a deep postseason run; I just didn’t believe in them.
On the other side of things, the San Francisco Giants needed all 162 games to secure their playoff spot, beating the Padres on the last day of the regular season to avoid a three way tie between them, the Padres, and the Braves for just two playoff spots. Their starting pitching carried them into the playoffs with an otherworldly September and much like in the American League, I thought their starters would do well but I got blinded by the stars in the LCS.
BY THE NUMBERS
In the division series, Texas hit .253/.286/.437 and outscored the Rays 21-13. In the LCS, those numbers jumped to .304/.378/.512 and 38-19, respectively, outscoring the Yankees by more than any single team has ever outscored them in a single series. How’s that for making playoff history?
While Tommy Hunter and CJ Lewis struggled a bit against the Yankees (0-1 in three games, 11 ER in 15.1 innings), Cliff Lee and Colby Lewis were more than enough to pick up the slack (3-0, 3 ER, 26 K in 21.2 innings) and history has shown time and time again that two reliable starters can certainly be enough to win a 7 game series.
After an abysmal batting line in the DS (.212/.288/.295) the Giants didn’t do much better in the LCS, though there was a definite improvement (.244/.301/.353) and considering they were going against a much more formidable staff in the LCS than the DS, this difference becomes very significant. The oddest thing about the Giants so far this postseason is despite their 7-3 record, they have managed to barely outscore their opponents by a total score of 30-29 (by contrast, the Rangers are 7-4 and have a run differential of 59-32). So the obvious question surrounding the Giants is will they be able to score enough runs and hold the Rangers to few enough runs to get four more wins?
X-FACTOR
For the Giants, I could say their entire offense is the x-factor. Their pitching staff will hold the Rangers to a winnable number of runs in at least four games of this series and then the only question is whether or not their offense can put up more runs.
Since the spotlight is on, I’m going to go with Cody Ross. So far this postseason, he is 11-34 (.324/.395/.794 slash line) but more importantly, he has 4 of San Francisco’s 6 home runs so far this October. Home runs are very valuable in the postseason because it is instant offense and doesn’t require any more than one swing of the bat to put runs on the board. Someone needs to provide a dangerous bat in the lineup for the Giants and so far it’s been Ross.
For the Rangers, they have two x-factors and they are the two biggest names on the team. First of all is Josh Hamilton. He was pretty much invisible in the DS against the Rays and in my mind it was logical to conclude that if he batted similarly against the Yankees, the Rangers had no chance of making it this far. All he did in the LCS was go 7-20 (.350/.536/1.000 slash line) with 4 home runs, 7 RBI, and 8 walks. When he swings the bat, it doesn’t even look like he hits the ball well and the next thing you know, fans are fighting over the souvenir. This lineup is better when he is hitting well and if he hits wells against the Giants, they are in trouble.
The other x-factor for the Rangers is the presence that looms over everything: Cliff Lee. So far this postseason, his numbers have been amazing. In three starts (all wins), he has pitched 24 innings, allowed 2 runs on 13 hits, walked 1 and struck out 34. In his postseason career, he is 7-0 with an ERA of 1.26 (in 64.1 innings) and he’s struck out 64 while walking only 7 and allowing just one home run. In last year’s World Series against a potent Yankees lineup, he was 2-0 with a 2.81 ERA which is the highest ERA he’s ever had in a single postseason series.
Will he pitch three times on short rest? My guess is no. He is, however, lined up to pitch game 1 in San Francisco and then potentially game 5 back in Texas. The good news for Rangers fans is if he does that, he’ll be on three day’s rest for either a start or a relief appearance in game 7 and while the Giants players and coaches will never say that scares them, they can’t be looking forward to facing him that many times. It’s possible that Bochy manages more aggressively in the first few games to try and minimize Lee’s impact similar to last year when Lee pitched game 5 already down 3-1 to the Yankees.
I know that managers don’t like to ever concede games, especially when there are only 7 and it’s the World Series but given the run that Lee is on, I almost wonder if the wisest course of action would be to start someone other than Lincecum against him, thus maximizing the chances that you win the games that Lee is not starting. Probably not the best move for clubhouse morale but interesting food for thought.
THE VERDICT
As far as I can tell, the Rangers have the edge in just about every way except home field advantage. Their offense is more potent, their defense is comparable as is their pitching staff. To me, they have a bigger chip on their shoulder and have more momentum coming into this series. But instead of relying on such vague subjective bits and pieces, I’m going to through this one out there.
In the wildcard era (1995 onward), there has only been one World Series matching teams whose regular season records were within 3 games of each other (the Giants were 92-70 while the Rangers were 90-72). In that series, the Diamondbacks (92-70) beat the Yankees (95-67) in seven games. In fact, in the 15 World Series since the advent of the wildcard, the team with fewer regular season wins has won 9 times and lost just 6.
There you have it. After 47 years of frustration, the Texas Rangers will win the World Series.
RANGERS 4, GIANTS 2
So, it is time to admit that yes, after years of frustrations and records propped up by playing in one of the weakest divisions in baseball, the Rangers are for real. It can all be traced back to July 9th when they were bold and daring and audacious and said that no matter how good they were (50-36, 4.5 games ahead of second place) they could be better. That was the day that they acquired former Cy Young winner Cliff Lee from the last place Seattle Mariners and despite struggling their way to a 90-72 regular season record, they had all the pieces in place for a deep postseason run; I just didn’t believe in them.
On the other side of things, the San Francisco Giants needed all 162 games to secure their playoff spot, beating the Padres on the last day of the regular season to avoid a three way tie between them, the Padres, and the Braves for just two playoff spots. Their starting pitching carried them into the playoffs with an otherworldly September and much like in the American League, I thought their starters would do well but I got blinded by the stars in the LCS.
BY THE NUMBERS
In the division series, Texas hit .253/.286/.437 and outscored the Rays 21-13. In the LCS, those numbers jumped to .304/.378/.512 and 38-19, respectively, outscoring the Yankees by more than any single team has ever outscored them in a single series. How’s that for making playoff history?
While Tommy Hunter and CJ Lewis struggled a bit against the Yankees (0-1 in three games, 11 ER in 15.1 innings), Cliff Lee and Colby Lewis were more than enough to pick up the slack (3-0, 3 ER, 26 K in 21.2 innings) and history has shown time and time again that two reliable starters can certainly be enough to win a 7 game series.
After an abysmal batting line in the DS (.212/.288/.295) the Giants didn’t do much better in the LCS, though there was a definite improvement (.244/.301/.353) and considering they were going against a much more formidable staff in the LCS than the DS, this difference becomes very significant. The oddest thing about the Giants so far this postseason is despite their 7-3 record, they have managed to barely outscore their opponents by a total score of 30-29 (by contrast, the Rangers are 7-4 and have a run differential of 59-32). So the obvious question surrounding the Giants is will they be able to score enough runs and hold the Rangers to few enough runs to get four more wins?
X-FACTOR
For the Giants, I could say their entire offense is the x-factor. Their pitching staff will hold the Rangers to a winnable number of runs in at least four games of this series and then the only question is whether or not their offense can put up more runs.
Since the spotlight is on, I’m going to go with Cody Ross. So far this postseason, he is 11-34 (.324/.395/.794 slash line) but more importantly, he has 4 of San Francisco’s 6 home runs so far this October. Home runs are very valuable in the postseason because it is instant offense and doesn’t require any more than one swing of the bat to put runs on the board. Someone needs to provide a dangerous bat in the lineup for the Giants and so far it’s been Ross.
For the Rangers, they have two x-factors and they are the two biggest names on the team. First of all is Josh Hamilton. He was pretty much invisible in the DS against the Rays and in my mind it was logical to conclude that if he batted similarly against the Yankees, the Rangers had no chance of making it this far. All he did in the LCS was go 7-20 (.350/.536/1.000 slash line) with 4 home runs, 7 RBI, and 8 walks. When he swings the bat, it doesn’t even look like he hits the ball well and the next thing you know, fans are fighting over the souvenir. This lineup is better when he is hitting well and if he hits wells against the Giants, they are in trouble.
The other x-factor for the Rangers is the presence that looms over everything: Cliff Lee. So far this postseason, his numbers have been amazing. In three starts (all wins), he has pitched 24 innings, allowed 2 runs on 13 hits, walked 1 and struck out 34. In his postseason career, he is 7-0 with an ERA of 1.26 (in 64.1 innings) and he’s struck out 64 while walking only 7 and allowing just one home run. In last year’s World Series against a potent Yankees lineup, he was 2-0 with a 2.81 ERA which is the highest ERA he’s ever had in a single postseason series.
Will he pitch three times on short rest? My guess is no. He is, however, lined up to pitch game 1 in San Francisco and then potentially game 5 back in Texas. The good news for Rangers fans is if he does that, he’ll be on three day’s rest for either a start or a relief appearance in game 7 and while the Giants players and coaches will never say that scares them, they can’t be looking forward to facing him that many times. It’s possible that Bochy manages more aggressively in the first few games to try and minimize Lee’s impact similar to last year when Lee pitched game 5 already down 3-1 to the Yankees.
I know that managers don’t like to ever concede games, especially when there are only 7 and it’s the World Series but given the run that Lee is on, I almost wonder if the wisest course of action would be to start someone other than Lincecum against him, thus maximizing the chances that you win the games that Lee is not starting. Probably not the best move for clubhouse morale but interesting food for thought.
THE VERDICT
As far as I can tell, the Rangers have the edge in just about every way except home field advantage. Their offense is more potent, their defense is comparable as is their pitching staff. To me, they have a bigger chip on their shoulder and have more momentum coming into this series. But instead of relying on such vague subjective bits and pieces, I’m going to through this one out there.
In the wildcard era (1995 onward), there has only been one World Series matching teams whose regular season records were within 3 games of each other (the Giants were 92-70 while the Rangers were 90-72). In that series, the Diamondbacks (92-70) beat the Yankees (95-67) in seven games. In fact, in the 15 World Series since the advent of the wildcard, the team with fewer regular season wins has won 9 times and lost just 6.
There you have it. After 47 years of frustration, the Texas Rangers will win the World Series.
RANGERS 4, GIANTS 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
