• Congrats To The St. Louis Cardinals!

    Posted by on October 28th, 2011 · Comments (24)

    The Cardinals have now won twice as many World Championships as the New York Yankees over the last 11 years.

    Think about that when Brian Cashman starts his 15th season as Yankees G.M. in 2012.

    Comments on Congrats To The St. Louis Cardinals!

    1. October 28th, 2011 | 11:23 pm

      And, the Sabathia games begin…now!

    2. Jim TreshFan
      October 28th, 2011 | 11:36 pm

      God! Talk about a choke! But then the Cards still had to win…and they did. No mystery about it. They got hot in September and with four (4) post season slots per league that’s all you need.

    3. October 28th, 2011 | 11:42 pm

      Texas becomes the first American League team since the Yankees of 63 and 64 to lose back to back World Series.

      What happened to the superior American League.

    4. Jim TreshFan
      October 28th, 2011 | 11:44 pm

      One thing the Cards have proven. You only need to win 85 to 90 games to have a World Championship caliber team. Heck, they only won 83 games in 2006. Are the Yankees up to that challenge?

    5. 77yankees
      October 29th, 2011 | 1:24 am

      From ten and a half out on August 30 to sneaking into the playoffs on the last day to coming back from one strike away – twice. Can’t say they didn’t earn it.

    6. Evan3457
      October 29th, 2011 | 1:56 am

      Steve Lombardi wrote:

      Think about that when Brian Cashman starts his 15th season as Yankees G.M. in 2012.

      I’m thinking about it.

      What it tells me is that Billy Beane is right; the post-season is a crapshoot.

    7. Evan3457
      October 29th, 2011 | 1:59 am

      Joseph Maloney wrote:

      Texas becomes the first American League team since the Yankees of 63 and 64 to lose back to back World Series.
      What happened to the superior American League.

      Well, this was the 7th consecutive year the AL won the interleague battle, head-to-head. But I suppose 4 to 7 games in October are more significant than over 250 games in May and June.

    8. #15
      October 29th, 2011 | 5:51 am

      I kind of agree with the playoff crapshoot concept when thre is not a real dominant team out there, like this year. It certainly applies to game 7′s.

      As I watched these games/teams I saw a few things the Yankees lack. Both of these teams were generally more athletic, went first to third more often, had more reliable contact hitting up and down the line up, had more reliable production from the middle of their orders, and had multiple starters capable of giving you 7 decent innings without holding your breath in the pre-game. On the other hand, the Yankees’ pen was much much better than either of these teams and the Yankees had a much steadier defense with a higher chance of making routine plays. Both catchers looked like they had a lot more left in the tank than Martin did at playoff time and both teams had more versatile benches. My read is the Yankees would have looked a bit tired and worn out against either of these teams and would have lacked the starting pitching depth to compete to the end. All that said, we should have beaten the Tigers. After that, without a really dominant team out there this year… crapshoot.

    9. October 29th, 2011 | 7:34 am

      77yankees wrote:

      From ten and a half out on August 30 to sneaking into the playoffs on the last day to coming back from one strike away – twice. Can’t say they didn’t earn it.

      Amen.

    10. October 29th, 2011 | 7:36 am

      W.S. rings since 1964:

      Yankees 7
      Cardinals 5
      A’s 4
      Dodgers 3
      Reds 3
      Orioles 3

      St. Louis is catching up on the Yankees…

    11. Jim TreshFan
      October 29th, 2011 | 10:08 am

      @ Steve L.:
      W.S. Rings since 1986:

      Yankees 5
      Twins 2
      Blue Jays 2
      Marlins 2
      Red Sox 2
      Cardinals 2

      So St. Louis has caught up to Minnesota and Toronto.

    12. October 29th, 2011 | 10:19 am

      @ Jim TreshFan:
      And, the count since 2001 is… ? :-)

    13. 77yankees
      October 29th, 2011 | 10:33 am

      Why do I feel like I’m at an auction here?

      Five, five, five, five….do I hear seven, seven, seven, seven?? :-)

    14. Jim TreshFan
      October 29th, 2011 | 10:54 am

      @ Steve L.:
      2 to 1.

      You can slice it any way you like. For instance: In the 10 year period from 1983 to 1992 what team won the most rings?

      But it can go on and on. After 2007 everyone was convinced that the Red Sox were a dynasty. They self destructed. After 2008 everyone was talking about a Phillies run. They haven’t won since and now have been displaced by the Cardinals as the premier National League team. My guess is that five or six years from now we’ll look back on this and say, “Hey, remember the Cardinals? They won two World Series in six years.”

    15. JeremyM
      October 29th, 2011 | 11:14 am

      @ #15:
      Can’t agree with you on some of these. If anything it proved starting pitching was overrated- the Cardinals only reliable starter was Carpenter. The Rangers starters weren’t very good either- I don’t think a starter for Texas made the 7th inning during the playoffs until Holland did so in game 4!

      I had no problem with the Yankees bench. The problem is the bench isn’t that important in AL baseball, and Girardi maybe could’ve been a bit more aggressive in moving cold hitters out of the lineup to take advantage of the bench, but there wasn’t a ton of opportunity to do so.

      Objectively, I do think the Yankees probably had the best team going into this thing (or maybe a nip behind Texas), and they just didn’t get it done.

    16. Raf
      October 29th, 2011 | 11:36 am

      #15 wrote:

      I kind of agree with the playoff crapshoot concept when thre is not a real dominant team out there, like this year. It certainly applies to game 7′s.

      There may not have been a real dominant team, but the Phils had the best record in MLB and the Yanks had the best record in the AL, both teams didn’t escape the first round.

    17. Corey Italiano
      October 29th, 2011 | 11:54 am

      The Braves are so lucky the Red Sox were somehow worse than them down the stretch. They’d be getting killed for this, otherwise.

    18. Corey Italiano
      October 29th, 2011 | 12:13 pm

      You know, Freese had an A-Rod 09-like post season this year…out of nowhere….wonder if there’s anything to that….

      or is it just A-Rod that can’t have super human post seasons?

    19. October 29th, 2011 | 12:40 pm

      Depends. Did Freese see a HGH-dealing doctor before the series, against the wishes of his doctor and team? If not, then he has nothing in common with A-Rod.

    20. Corey Italiano
      October 29th, 2011 | 1:08 pm

      @ Steve L.:
      Let’s be fair here. You were saying PEDs before the news about the doctor came out.

    21. PHMDen
      February 2nd, 2014 | 7:19 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I’m thinking about it.

      What it tells me is that Billy Beane is right; the post-season is a crapshoot.

      Raf wrote:

      “In the 18 postseasons since the playoffs expanded in 1995, the team with the best overall record in the regular season ended up as World Series champion just three times. The Yankees did it twice, in 1998 and 2009, and Boston accomplished it as well in 2007. That one out of six rate is little better than if the champion was chosen randomly.”

      Evan3457 wrote:

      … 11 of the 18 World Champions were among the top four teams in MLB, as measured by regular season WPCT. 7 of the 18 were 5th or lower. 3 of the 18 champions had the best record. 3 times, the champion was 9th or lower…

      [Beane's] teams in 2001-2003 had better rotations (as measured in regular season performance) and better top 3′s than their opposition; they still lost all 3 series.
      This means one of two things:

      1) Either the post-season is more of a crapshoot than it isn’t, or
      
2) The post-season ISN’T about pitching all the time….

      [U]sing probability [is] one of the obvious ways to try to demonstrate the randomness [, or lack thereof,] of post-season outcomes.

      “… [From 2000-03], the A’s averaged 98 wins per season and made four consecutive postseason appearances… The A’s didn’t merely fail to win it all – they lost four straight times in the ALDS… the A’s were favored based on regular-season winning percentage on all four occasions… The probability of the A’s losing all four of these series consecutively is 3.5 percent, or odds of about 27-to-1 against… To hear some tell it, the A’s have been serial victims of bad luck…

      [By 2002, the] Big Three of Zito, Hudson, and Mulder established themselves, and Beane, learning from his experience, began to pay more attention to relief pitching and outfield defense. By 2003, the A’s had become a legitimately strong postseason club… in 2004 and 2005 at least, Beane’s window of opportunity had closed.” – Perry, Dayn; Woolner, Keith (2006). Jonah Keri, ed. Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know about the Game Is Wrong. Copyright (c) 2006 by Baseball Prospectus. New York: Basic Books.

    22. Kamieniecki
      February 2nd, 2014 | 7:51 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      I’m thinking about it.

      What it tells me is that Billy Beane is right; the post-season (sic) is a crapshoot.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      [U]sing probability [is] one of the obvious ways to try to demonstrate the randomness of post-season (sic) outcomes.

      PHMDen wrote:

      The probability of the A’s losing all four of these series consecutively is 3.5 percent, or odds of about 27-to-1 against… To hear some tell it, the A’s have been serial victims of bad luck…

      @ Evan3457:
      Oh, maybe you can get the slow-track students to calculate probability of the “serial victims of bad luck” with one of the lowest payrolls in M.L.B. losing all of seven postseason series consecutively through 2013.

    23. Evan3457
      February 3rd, 2014 | 3:58 pm

      PHMDen wrote:

      “… [From 2000-03], the A’s averaged 98 wins per season and made four consecutive postseason appearances… The A’s didn’t merely fail to win it all – they lost four straight times in the ALDS… the A’s were favored based on regular-season winning percentage on all four occasions… The probability of the A’s losing all four of these series consecutively is 3.5 percent, or odds of about 27-to-1 against… To hear some tell it, the A’s have been serial victims of bad luck…
      [By 2002, the] Big Three of Zito, Hudson, and Mulder established themselves, and Beane, learning from his experience, began to pay more attention to relief pitching and outfield defense. By 2003, the A’s had become a legitimately strong postseason club… in 2004 and 2005 at least, Beane’s window of opportunity had closed.” – Perry, Dayn; Woolner, Keith (2006). Jonah Keri, ed. Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know about the Game Is Wrong. Copyright (c) 2006 by Baseball Prospectus. New York: Basic Books.

      I didn’t choose the A’s as an example of why YOU don’t know anything about what wins in the postseason on the basis of their regular season records; I cited them because they are a COUNTEREXAMPLE of your famous “Three dominant starters wins in the postseason” theory.

      Now, if you try to make the case that they weren’t a team of three dominant starters…

      In 2001-3, Zito won a Cy Young Award, and was in the AL Top 10 for both ERA+ and WAR for pitchers.
      In 2000-4, Hudson was in the top 6 for the Cy Young 3 times, and was in the top 10 for both ERA+ and WAR for pitchers all five seasons.
      In 2001-3, Mulder finished 2nd in the Cy Young once, and was top 10 in both ERA+ and WAR for pitchers in 2001 and 2003, and in 2002 he was 12th in both categories.

      So the 2001-3 A’s had three pitchers in the top 12 in both ERA+ and WAR for pitchers, won one Cy Young, and had two second-place Cy Young finishes, yet couldn’t win a single division round series. That you cite that team to chump my argument instead chumps your own argument, and awards you…

      http://tinyurl.com/k7yuyhx

    24. Evan3457
      February 3rd, 2014 | 4:00 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Evan3457 wrote:
      I’m thinking about it.
      What it tells me is that Billy Beane is right; the post-season (sic) is a crapshoot.
      Evan3457 wrote:
      [U]sing probability [is] one of the obvious ways to try to demonstrate the randomness of post-season (sic) outcomes.
      PHMDen wrote:
      The probability of the A’s losing all four of these series consecutively is 3.5 percent, or odds of about 27-to-1 against… To hear some tell it, the A’s have been serial victims of bad luck…
      @ Evan3457:
      Oh, maybe you can get the slow-track students to calculate probability of the “serial victims of bad luck” with one of the lowest payrolls in M.L.B. losing all of seven postseason series consecutively through 2013.

      Already answered another one of your putrid peronae, Sybil.

      Don’t you get it, Sybil? You’re a troll, and fairly pathetic one at that.