sk7326

I get the hype - his postseason performances have been amazing. But I lived through Tim Wakefield just about being the NLCS MVP in 1992. It's a great time for a hot streak - give me more than 64 IP before I make a more substantial verdict.

fWAR I think is much better than bbWAR for pitchers for sure - for hitters it is at least a little closer. The bottom line is that Drew is a good shortstop, maybe better than that. But he is blocking a guy the franchise (and me) is bullish on. Could the Bogaerts-guys be wrong? Sure - no doubt. There is some risk there, but you make the best decision you can. Personally to me, the risk is minimal - 21 year olds who have progressed up the system the way he has, we are arguing between whether he will end up Jhonny Peralta or Alex Rodriguez (I know, I know) ... barring injury, it is extremely unlikely he is going to be a flameout. You want some depth? You don't spend on a true starter to provide insurance - or a supplement. Drew is too good to be an "extra guy" and the Red Sox would be spending too much money just to carry an "extra guy" of that caliber.

Kozma is one of the very worst players to start on a pennant winner - scrappy mcscrapperson ... really they could do worse than dealing Freese and Kozma, moving Carpenter to 3rd and signing Drew to play SS.

If those defenders could have only caught that 2 run homerun in the 8th ... and thanks for the extra run

Cards offense is good, and led the NL - the Red Sox scored 70 runs more, and even if you normalize for the different ERAs in the league that would still be higher than what the Cards output was. Both lineups are deep and balanced, though only the Cardinals are starting a replacement level player. Not everybody in the Sox lineup is hitting - but at least they all can.

Not lacking at all ... the Red Sox offense is a little better. The Red Sox offense was the best in the bigs ... being a little worse than the league's best is not lacking.

Drew is a good to very good SS blocking a guy who is part of the future plans. Yes Bogaerts is not a sure thing (but then again, aren't we all), but is there any reason for him not to get big boy ABs? Playing twice a week doesn't really cut it - you're better off getting him everyday reps at Pawtucket instead. I am not sure Drew wants to be a part-timer either. He's 30 with an injury history - but definitely good enough to not necessarily want to get into the Crash Davis "grizzled veteran" portion of his career yet. I defended him in the debate vs Iglesias - the Red Sox did the absolute right thing. But Bogaerts has shown conclusively to me - not that he's going to be a star next year, but that he is worth plugging in and having strong conviction about it. And I feel the same way about Bradley (albeit with less confidence) going into next season at CF.

Sox pick it better than the Cards - the Cards pitching is a little more balanced and the Sox offense is a little better than the Cards, but it's close. Both managers are nothing special, but Farrell has done a better job in-game than Matheny has (at least from the analyses I have read and twitter and whatnot, the NLCS was full of howlers too).

Beware using pitcher wins for anything. Wainwright's 2nd half FIP 3.07, first half 2.22 ... he went from amazing to very good. I am impressed certainly.

Wacha has been dominant in the postseason ... we have seen youngsters rise up in postseasons, Price, Moore - Tim Wakefield in 1992. But 241 IP > 64 IP ... Wainwright is the hoss, and the track record to back it up. I am excited to see Wacha though, he has a chance to be a true staff ace when he breaks camp next year.

Depth is a good thing - all that is being discussed is how much should it cost. The team that we get Aug 1, 2014 will not be the one that leaves Fort Myers - there is a time for this stuff to get solved, and for the kids to conclusively address things. The QOs will go to guys they definitely want back or guys who definitely ARE NOT accepting it. (or at least that is what the game theory would indicate) Ellsbury is obviously the 2nd category, Napoli is obviously the first. I suspect Salty is in the former category as well. Drew will be an interesting one, and the one that has the most intrigue on either side.

Lot of truth there, and a lot of youth there too ... at the same time the Red Sox are going to challenge them - it's the best lineup these guys will face the rest of the way. We were able to get to Tampa Bay, whose pitching staff has many similar virtues. We may or may not win this series (duh) ... but I think this squad is probably better than the 2007 team, but definitely not as good as the 2004 one.

Well, to be fair, the true bridge is Tazawa/Breslow, who have been plenty good. After all, most team's 5th/6th inning sorts are largely not very good either. And I do trust Workman as much as I'll trust any guy of that ilk (trust less than Tazawa/Breslow, more than Morales/Thornton) - I can get behind him being put into an important spot at least.

The narrative is all silly. Carpenter may not be a superstar, but he was one of the 5 or 10 best players in the National League this year. Petey, Ellsbury have bigger names certainly, but whose fault is that? Pedroia, Ellsbury and Victorino have all had MVP-ish seasons (at least getting votes). Superstar is a weird term to use for somebody as scruffy as Pedroia, but he is the Red Sox "brand name" player and a former MVP - most alleged superstars don't have that going for them. These are two superb offensive units with a lot of diversity. The Cards are not as proficient with the homeruns, but they double plenty and their home park is not one that yields much of that anyway. Nobody is weeping for them, they led their league in runs and On Base too. After the Red Sox 1-year lapse in managerial/front office competence is back with Saint Louis as two of the best run orgs in the entire league - outfits which have spit out GMs for other teams as much as wins. The Sox beat some top shelf starters in the ALCS - the challenge in the World Series harkens back more to the Tampa series ... a pitching staff with youth and stuff for days. Now I don't want to get too bogged down in the analysis - after all, this is baseball and if four pitchers throw four shutouts, all of this analysis goes out the window. (it's like having a hot goaltender in hockey in that sense) But the Red Sox will bring their batting eye with them and force the Cardinals pitchers to come to them. This postseason it has resulted in some big innings, yes - but it also has allowed them to create opportunities when they weren't hitting. (it is rare to say a near no-hitter with 17 Ks featured some GENUINE squanders, but the Red Sox had em in Game 1 of the ALCS) LOBs suck, but it is the stat that is not all bad - since it means that you are generating chances. Key player in the series is Allen Craig who can close the gap between the lineups substantially if he is healthy. For Boston, it's still the starting pitchers. If they can continue to allow Farrell (his own compulsions aside) to be able to skip the Morales-Workman part of the bullpen every time out, we're going to be in good shape.

Reverse jinxes are ok - I picked the Cards too

You underestimate Billy Martin in general or the 1972-74 A's of Dick Williams/Charlie Finley ... but it is all moot. We definitely have a good management team in, even if it took reaching back to the old management team to do it.

I leave out alienating players - sports has been littered with players who disliked their coach, respect, fear whatever. I did not have sympathy for players complaining about their feefees getting hurt. But to not be able to get on the page with the coaching staff - that was just derelict. After all, as long as there is one or two guys on the coaching staff who can bridge a manager and the players, the players can consider the manager an ******* (as long as he is considered an ******* who knows a lot about the sport - like Belichick does with football) and deliver perfectly excellent results.

If Carpenter were healthy it would have helped - but otherwise the starting pitching matchups were dreadful ... it was a team that throve on offense (St Louis) against a team which was better at everything.

Bit of chicken-egg at work there. Busch was near the bottom of the league across all park factors - the players they acquired built for a big homerun sapping park, so makes sense they act that way on the road too. The narrative of the 2004 World Series is a bit much there, after all in 2003 "nobody" would beat the Yankees after such a glorious win. It's baseball, all of these series are fluky, c'est la vie. Cards won 105 games at the apex of the gap between the 2 leagues in quality. That has closed some since then.

As long as the divisions are aligned this way (15 teams per league) interleague is sort of foisted upon us - just a logistical point. Although I'd prefer to go to 4 divisions myself.

Hey, Farrell deserves plaudits - he also did not magically heal our best players (a HUGE contribution to the 69-win-ness). That can't be understated. He's not great in terms of pushing the buttons IMO, but he is not awful either. And at the end of the day, the players have done a great job and the work he and the coaching staff have done during the season show in the product. He has run a terrific coaching staff.

If he gave up hitting right handed, I am convinced he would be a legitimately top shelf starting catcher (let's top 8-12 area). Considering the scouting reports in his Atlanta days, where most expected him to not be able to stay behind the plate, he has really done a good job making himself into a true legit guy.

Agreed on interleague play. At the same time, a more balanced schedule is not a bad thing. We see our division rivals a TON, and this year we had Cleveland win 91 games, 5 more than the Yankees, essentially riding the backs of beating some legitimately horrid AL Central foes. 13 games in division, 9 games out of division, 20 interleague = 162 and that would probably allow playoff seeding to be much more uniform. Baseball is just too fluky a game to get the best teams to win the title that often (as opposed to the NBA where there are hardly any upsets) - but it'd be nicer for the teams to not have the schedule imbalance that there is currently. Here is what boggles my mind about the DH (and yes, both leagues should have it). We accept that teams carry players who are only good at fielding. We know that pitchers are only good at pitching (generally). Yet somehow, despite hitting being such an intricate discipline, fans get mad about the idea that some players can only be good at hitting and that's totally cool. What is gained by having a dude go up and do a job for which he is totally ill-equipped (and frankly, with how hard pitching is, he should be "too busy to concentrate on preparing to hit")? Who wins - just some high minded nonsense, that's all.

The low power numbers are a function of playing in a pitcher's park - no more. The Cards led the league in doubles and in on-base percentage. They were still very much a "go for the big inning" sort of team. 3rd in slugging in the NL, 2nd in BA. The offense is plenty powerful, although deciding to hit the ball the other way is more narrative than actual reality - if you could hit 3-run homers, you would. But Busch doesn't let you - so you cope. The average with RISP is misleading as usual since it doesn't really measure anything - but the Cards can hit. Carpenter is an MVP-level guy, Craig's return could help a lot, Holliday is flawed but clearly dangerous, Molina is excellent. This is a better team than the one which was cannon fodder in 2004, or the Jeff Suppan led team which stumbled into a title in 2006.

He is right in that he did not have the injury good fortune that Farrell has had. But that does not explain his inability/unwillingness to manage a coaching staff. If you want one serious difference between Farrell and Valentine that has been meaningful, aside from the renewed focus on on-base, it's simply that Farrell's coaching staff was on the same page and communicated with players and each other.