• Congrats To The World Champion Red Sox

    Posted by on October 30th, 2013 · Comments (37)

    You can make a case that the only times the Cardinals won in this series is when the Red Sox made sloppy throws.

    Think about this:  In the last 35 years, the Yankees have 5 rings and now the Red Sox have three.  So much for the hammer and the nail…

    Now, the count-down begins…until someone in Beantown does something totally unclassy in their celebration of this win in Fenway.

     

    Comments on Congrats To The World Champion Red Sox

    1. #15
      October 31st, 2013 | 9:38 am

      With the way politics and baseball have gone lately… I’m on suicide watch.

    2. October 31st, 2013 | 10:34 am

      @ #15:
      LOL.
      I will say this. John Farrell impressed the hell out of me in this series – just with the way he conducted himself. Very, very, classy dude.

    3. McMillan
      October 31st, 2013 | 1:55 pm

      How was Cherington able to turn this franchise around from a last place finish in 2012? The main reason is that he had a foundation of starting pitching to build on: Dempster Drew, Gomes, Napoli, Ross, Victorino, Uehara – there is not one front-end starting pitcher on that list.

      Any excuses about an organizational philosophy/business plan responsible for the N.Y. Yankees’ decline is not supportable, as the players in the 2013 postseason clearly showed (e.g. Buchholz, Kelly, Rosenthal, etc.) – many were drafted after Brian Cashman had made a selection.

      Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles, and St. Louis will continue be around for a while.

      #15 wrote:

      With the way politics and baseball have gone lately… I’m on suicide watch.

      @ #15:
      I’m with you…

    4. Mr. October
      October 31st, 2013 | 2:39 pm

      Can Yanks be like BoSox? Lotsa luck

      “NEW YORK — A year ago, the Red Sox were licking their wounds after a nightmarish season in which they managed to win just 69 games and found themselves a last-place team…

      If anything, the quick turnaround by the Red Sox should give Yankees fans some hope that miracles can happen in the Bronx too.

      But not too much hope.

      [Cherington finding someone to dump Beckett, Crawford, and Gonzalez on] would be the equivalent of Cashman finding someone to dump Rodriguez, Sabathia and Teixeira on.

      And then, finding relatively low-cost replacements for them either on the free-agent marketplace, through trades or in their farm system.

      Lotsa luck.”

      http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/9903151/new-york-yankees-follow-lead-boston-red-sox

    5. Kamieniecki
      October 31st, 2013 | 4:50 pm

      Anyone who believes the Boston Red Sox could have won this championship with a rotation of Sabathia, Kuroda, Pettitte, and Phil Hughes by “getting hot” for an entire month, or lucky, against the best teams in M.L.B. either knows little about the game, or is kidding themselves.

      Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles, and St. Louis didn’t get hot or cold, or lucky, for three weeks to one calendar month – these were the best teams in M.L.B. – and, incidentally, the teams with the biggest payrolls of all playoff teams.

      To say any of the Final Four has a chance to win it all in some years might or might not be true; but to say any of the Final Eight, or Final Ten, has a chance to win it all every year by “getting hot” for an entire month, or lucky, against the best teams in M.L.B. can’t be backed up intellectually, statistically, or in any way.

      Boston might be the “best team,” or it might not be:

      the Dodgers might have won with a healthy Ramirez, or the Tigers with a healthy Cabrera, or the Cardinals might have won if the National League secured home-field advantage in the All-Star game…

      but there can be no argument that luck determined the outcome of any of the series Boston played in, none of which went to an elimination game.

      If the Cardinals, Dodgers, or Tigers were truly the best team, there’s always next year. If any one of those teams goes 25-26 for the next NINE YEARS, it won’t be because of injuries, All-Star game losses, or luck.

      The general manager has no clothes: size might not matter to Louise Meanwell, but size does matter when it comes to Cashman’s payroll. His next contract extension will be his last as G.M.

    6. redbug
      October 31st, 2013 | 6:20 pm

      Other than the last 2 games, it was a fun WS. The postseason was good too.

      The Red Sox won due to pitching, starters and pen, plus Ortiz and Pedroia. Because of the bombing, I’m happy for Boston. I remember how much the 2001 WS meant to all of us in the NYC area.

    7. Evan3457
      November 1st, 2013 | 3:03 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Anyone who believes the Boston Red Sox could have won this championship with a rotation of Sabathia, Kuroda, Pettitte, and Phil Hughes by “getting hot” for an entire month, or lucky, against the best teams in M.L.B. either knows little about the game, or is kidding themselves.

      I sure am glad the Yanks kidded themselves all the way to a title in 2009 behind a rotation of Sabathia, Pettitte and Burnett. Unless you think Kuroda is a bigger headcase than AJ.

      Or some other idiotic opinion, chump.

      Boston, Detroit, Los Angeles, and St. Louis didn’t get hot or cold, or lucky, for three weeks to one calendar month – these were the best teams in M.L.B. – and, incidentally, the teams with the biggest payrolls of all playoff teams.

      Hey, the favorite won the tournament! Good for you!
      For the 1st time in four year, chump.

      To say any of the Final Four has a chance to win it all in some years might or might not be true; but to say any of the Final Eight, or Final Ten, has a chance to win it all every year by “getting hot” for an entire month, or lucky, against the best teams in M.L.B. can’t be backed up intellectually, statistically, or in any way.

      2006 Cards better give back their title, then.

      but there can be no argument that luck determined the outcome of any of the series Boston played in, none of which went to an elimination game.

      Only a chump like you would believe that a lucky break that turns a post-season series has to occur in deciding game seven.

      If the Cardinals, Dodgers, or Tigers were truly the best team, there’s always next year.

      If any of those teams were truly the best THIS YEAR, it won’t matter NEXT YEAR. You know why? Because next year is a DIFFERENT year.

      Did you know that the Tigers are now 4-3 in the last 3 years in playoff series, but 17-18 in games won and lost, despite have the greatest rotation since, oh, whaddya say? the 1954 Indians? (Who got swept by the Giants, by the way.) Seems pretty random to me for a team with such a great rotation. Even if you only count the two post-seasons since they got Sanchez and Fister, they’re still only 12-12. All that pitching, and they’re exactly one-half game better than the Yanks in the post-season since 2005.

      Chumped again!

      His next contract extension will be his last as G.M.

      There’s that 5% I mentioned in the other thread. You might be right about this one. Congratulations.

    8. Kamieniecki
      November 2nd, 2013 | 3:21 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:


      The brutal facts that you can’t get away from:

      [Only 11 of the last 18 World Series champions] were among the top 4 teams as measured by regular season WPCT… 3 of the 18 champions had the best record…

      Evan3457 wrote:

      The hitting of one team in a series and the pitching of the other are two halves of the same coin… Prove to me that it’s the pitching, and not the hitting, which determines who wins.

      @ Evan3457:

      This is where your fundamental lack of understanding of the game becomes apparent. You simply do not understand this game.

      A person who understands this game would not write comments such as these, or, “prove to me it’s the pitching, and not the hitting, which determines who wins.”

      The 1995-2013 results of the A.L.C.S. (78.8%), N.L.C.S. (84.2%), and W.S. (84.2%) demonstrate series played in the postseason are determined more by starting pitching than series played in the regular season – that is, something someone with a sound understanding of this game would expect.

      77.19% of all best-of-seven series have been settled in 6 games or less.

      What would a postseason determined more by luck and randomness look like to someone with a sound understanding of this sport? More games determined in the later innings in comparison with the regular season, more series going to elimination games, etc.

      @ Evan3457:
      Your argument (taken off the Internet), that the postseason must be mostly luck, because a 94-win team from the A.L. East is as likely to win the World Series as a 97-win team from the N.L. West, can not be accepted by anyone with an ounce of common sense.

      The 94-win team might have had more wins in April, fewer in May, more in June, fewer in July, more in August, and fewer in Sep. than the 97-win team, and simply finished with 3 less wins.

      You lose all credibility by simply citing this “argument.” You not only lack an understanding of this game, you lack common sense.

      Jay Leno would have no problem finding people on an L.A. street corner at 2:30 a.m. who would understand that winning 94 games does not make a baseball team better than a team that won 97 games of a 162 game season played from April to October.

      And you’ve probably never played this game either – probably not at the high school level, and certainly not at the college level or beyond as some of us have.

      With common sense, and any understanding of this game, you would not make comments such as the ones you’ve made.

    9. McMillan
      November 2nd, 2013 | 10:04 pm

      @ Kamieniecki:
      I think Evan3457 has gone Louise Meanwell…

    10. Kamieniecki
      November 2nd, 2013 | 10:49 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      I think Evan3457 has gone Louise Meanwell…

      @ McMillan:
      Would you like to explain to Louise that the 2.06 E.R.A. of Scherzer, Verlander, Sanchez, and Fister was the reason this team had a chance to win a pennant, without even a bullpen? Or that Boston hit .202 for the series?

      The series was as much about starting pitching as any series – and Louise still wants to argue.

      The next thing you know, Evan3457 will want $6,000.00 from me for a medical procedure…

    11. Evan3457
      November 3rd, 2013 | 12:17 am

      Kamieniecki

      The favorite for the tournament won this year, and it wasn’t the team with the best rotation in the tournament.

      It was the best hitting team in baseball that won it. Two of their starting four pitched great, the other two, not so much. In fact, Peavy, who they went out of their way to trade for, was a negative in the post-season.

      Just keep right on chumping yourself Sybil.

    12. Evan3457
      November 3rd, 2013 | 12:17 am

      McMillan wrote:

      @ Kamieniecki:
      I think Evan3457 has gone Louise Meanwell…

      I think you’re gonna go right on chumping yourself.
      But everyone, including you, already knows that.

    13. Evan3457
      November 3rd, 2013 | 12:18 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      McMillan wrote:
      I think Evan3457 has gone Louise Meanwell…
      @ McMillan:
      Would you like to explain to Louise that the 2.06 E.R.A. of Scherzer, Verlander, Sanchez, and Fister was the reason this team had a chance to win a pennant, without even a bullpen? Or that Boston hit .202 for the series?
      The series was as much about starting pitching as any series – and Louise still wants to argue.
      The next thing you know, Evan3457 will want $6,000.00 from me for a medical procedure…

      The Tigers starting pitching was chumped by their bullpen.
      And chumped you in the process.
      But you already know that.
      Keep on flailing, Sybil.

    14. Mr. October
      November 3rd, 2013 | 2:35 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      The 1995-2013 results of the A.L.C.S. (78.8%), N.L.C.S. (84.2%), and W.S. (84.2%) demonstrate series played in the postseason are determined more by starting pitching than series played in the regular season – that is, something someone with a sound understanding of this game would expect.

      @ Kamieniecki,
      @ McMillan

      “The 2013 World Series highlighted the drawn-out, low-scoring war of attrition that baseball has become… The N.L. Champion Cardinals epitomize how power pitching rules the game…

      St. Louis’ starting pitchers combined to throw 71% of the team’s innings through the first 15 games of October while piling up 92 strikeouts in 96 innings…

      It was HARDER TO HIT in the big leagues this year (.253), OR GET ON BASE (.318), that at ANY TIME SINCE the DESIGNATED HITTER was adopted.

      The A.L. Champion Red Sox are the preminent countertacticians to superior pitching: they turn OFFENSE INTO DEFENSE…

      With bad teams, [AND] FIFTH STARTERS AND MIDDLE RELIEVERS WEEDED OUT, POSTSEASON BASEBALL is an EVEN MORE REFINED VERSION of the DEPRESSED RUN-SCORING ENVIRONMENT created by today’s PITCHING…

      THROUGH 36 POSTSEASON GAMES this year, teams HIT .231 AND COMBINED to SCORE ONLY 7.2 RUNS PER GAME…”

      The rest of Verducci’s article in this month’s Sports Illustrated leaves something to be desired: his “idea” for a Bonus At-Bat to replace the Designated Hitter rule is a flawed variation of a concept I proposed to him and a number of other baseball journalists throughout the country in the past – Verducci himself in 2012 – and I have the emails to prove it.

      He concludes:

      “Now in this age DOMINATED BY PITCHING…”

      @ Evan3457:
      The postseason is all about starting pitching. Sorry.

      If you want to argue with Verducci too, I’m sure you can find his email address online… I did. I’m not sure what high school he teaches at when he is not appearing as an announcer or commentator on ESPN, writing articles for major sports and entertainment magazines and news publications, etc., but you can certainly contact him by email.

    15. Evan3457
      November 3rd, 2013 | 4:59 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      The postseason is all about starting pitching. Sorry.
      If you want to argue with Verducci too, I’m sure you can find his email address online… I did. I’m not sure what high school he teaches at when he is not appearing as an announcer or commentator on ESPN, writing articles for major sports and entertainment magazines and news publications, etc., but you can certainly contact him by email.

      That’s funny. Because a month ago, when the post-season started, Verducci wrote this article:

      http://si.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1208792/index.htm

      The title is: It’s Anyone’s October. In it, Verducci quotes Beane extensively, and in much more detail than he was quoted in Moneyball about how and the why baseball’s post-season IS, in fact, a crapshoot.

      That’s the funny thing about appeals to authority; you don’t get to pick and choose what parts of what they right you hold valid.

      Notice that BEFORE the post-season begins, Verducci agrees with me, 100%. It is only AFTER the post-season is over, and the results are KNOWN, that he agrees with you.

      You know, reasoning after the fact. Your special “strength”. Or to put it another, yes, we know that teams whose starting pitchers pitcher very well have an excellent chance to win. We just don’t know before the post-season starts, which team will get starting pitching consistent enough and strong enough to win two straight series, and the pennant, or three straight series, and the title.

      Again, for all six mouth-breathing personalities that inhabit your mind, the best HITTING team in each league won their pennants, the best HITTING team in baseball won it all. So, once again, it is proven: championship are very good at lots of things, and have few weaknesses. Or they got hot, and a season-long weakness temporarily becomes a strength, as the Giants did in winning it all in 2010.

      And once again: you’ve chumped yourself.

      Chump Supreme!

    16. Evan3457
      November 3rd, 2013 | 5:00 pm

      What they write
      Sigh.

    17. Evan3457
      November 3rd, 2013 | 7:06 pm

      Oh, almost forgot.

      You chumped yourself in yet another way. Even if Verducci is correct about the current pitching era, it STILL doesn’t apply to most of the Cashman autonomy era, as runs scored per game in the AL were still elevated right through 2010.

      Anyway you slice it, you and your theories are chumped.

    18. McMillan
      November 3rd, 2013 | 7:15 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      The next thing you know, Evan3457 will want $6,000.00 from me for a medical procedure…

      @ Kamieniecki:
      Or mental health treatment…

    19. McMillan
      November 3rd, 2013 | 7:21 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      The rest of Verducci’s article in this month’s Sports Illustrated leaves something to be desired: his “idea” for a Bonus At-Bat to replace the Designated Hitter rule is a flawed variation of a concept I proposed to him and a number of other baseball journalists throughout the country in the past – Verducci himself in 2012 – and I have the emails to prove it.

      @ Mr. October:
      What was the concept?

    20. Mr. October
      November 3rd, 2013 | 8:05 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      @ Mr. October:
      What was the concept?

      @ McMillan:
      I’ve corresponded with a number of journalists over the years regarding a rule change proposal I’ve had to replace the DH – mostly for the sake of conversation or discussion, and last year I emailed Verducci along with a number of other people one afternoon – and I received a reply from most, but not Verducci.

      In the November, 2013 issue of Sports Illustrated, he proposes a “Bonus At-Bat,” which has very strong similarities to the rule change I’ve proposed for years, and two paragraphs in the article itself contain wording and explanation that could almost have been “cut and pasted” from my 2012 email to him and others.

      My proposal would not allow a team such as Boston one chance to send David Ortiz to bat at anytime in the game without removing the player Ortiz batted for in a “bonus at-bat,” as Verducci calls it – I think that’s a bit ridiculous, but the underlying principle is the same. And the similarities between the wording of my email and Verducci’s piece is striking.

      I’m not going to get into the proposal – it’s more complex than Verducci’s simplistic version of it, but, like I said, it’s almost impossible to believe his “idea” does not come directly from my correspondence with him – and I have the emails to prove it. The only thing I’ll say is that my version would meet with some resistance which would have to be overcome as part of a CBA in the long-term, but it’s doable.

      And I’ve gotten a lot of very postive feedback from it, such as from a certain YES broadcaster I’ve referred to here from time-to-time…

    21. Kamieniecki
      November 3rd, 2013 | 8:41 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      Verducci

      It doesn’t sound as if he meant well.

    22. Mr. October
      November 3rd, 2013 | 9:48 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      It doesn’t sound as if he meant well.

      @ Kamieniecki:
      I don’t know what surprises me most: 1. how poor Verducci’s bastardization of my proposal was; 2. that Sports Illustrated published it; or 3. that Verducci did not take a few minutes to re-word an email I sent to him and at least a half-dozen other journalists last year.

      I’m in a bit of a state of shock.

    23. Kamieniecki
      November 3rd, 2013 | 10:56 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      I don’t know what surprises me most: 1. how poor Verducci’s bastardization of my proposal was; 2. that Sports Illustrated published it; or 3. that Verducci did not take a few minutes to re-word an email I sent to him and at least a half-dozen other journalists last year.

      I’m in a bit of a state of shock.

      @ Mr. October:
      What would you expect from a journalist quoted by Evan3457?

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Did you know that the Tigers are now 4-3 in the last 3 years in playoff series, but 17-18 in games won and lost, despite have the greatest rotation since…

      @ Evan3457:
      The Cashman Autonomy Era:

      New York Yankees Postseason Record
      Payroll: $1.9 Bil. – $2.1 Bil.
      Postseason Winning Pct.: .490
      A.L. Pennants: 1
      World Series Titles: 1
      Meanwells: 1
      Projected 2014 Starting Rotation: Sabathia, Nova, T.B.D., T.B.D., T.B.D.

      Detroit Tigers Postseason Record
      Payroll: $1.0 Bil. – $1.1 Bil.
      Postseason Winning Pct.: .521
      A.L. Pennants: 2
      World Series Titles: 0
      Meanwells: 0
      Projected 2014 Starting Rotation: Scherzer, Verlander, Sanchez, Fister

      @ Evan3457:
      The joke is on you, fool:

      You’re the one who’s been defending the record of this G.M. for years – and under this G.M.’s watch, the team has won comparatively little in relation to Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, San Francisco, St. Louis, Texas – even Colorado, Houston, and Tampa Bay.

      And will not compete for a Pennant again for years to come; this organization’s a mess from top-to-bottom.

      Not surprising, since you don’t understand the game at all, from a business standpoint or otherwise. If you did, you wouldn’t post the comments you have; anyone who writes, “Prove to me it’s the pitching, and not the hitting, which determines the outcome of a series,” simply doesn’t understand this game – this game is about pitching.

      It’s common sense that a 97-win team isn’t necessarily better than a 94-win team in this sport. And it’s also common sense – to someone who understands the game – that a better team can lose a best-of-five, or a best-of-seven, series in ONE postseason; no one’s suggested otherwise. The Boston Red Sox have 3 World Series Titles since 2004, and are well-positioned for 2014 and beyond – F**k Beane; I’m sick of the guy’s name. He’s one G.M.

      An argument that Beane’s teams wouldn’t have won more in the postseason with $140-70 million more in payroll each year since 2000 isn’t even worthy of one more courtesy of a reply – it’s raw stupidity…

      Get help.

    24. Mr. October
      November 3rd, 2013 | 11:24 pm

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      @ Mr. October:
      What would you expect from a journalist quoted by Evan3457?

      @ Kamieniecki:
      You got a point, there: Verducci’s “Bonus At-Bat” version of my proposal sucks – why should it surprise anyone that Verducci is quoted by an intellectual giant, such as Evan?

    25. Evan3457
      November 4th, 2013 | 1:51 am

      McMillan wrote:

      Kamieniecki wrote:
      The next thing you know, Evan3457 will want $6,000.00 from me for a medical procedure…
      @ Kamieniecki:
      Or mental health treatment…

      I ain’t the one trolling as six different personalities because my own is so weak it can’t stand on its own, Sybil.

      What a chump.

    26. Evan3457
      November 4th, 2013 | 1:53 am

      Mr. October wrote:

      And I’ve gotten a lot of very postive feedback from it, such as from a certain YES broadcaster I’ve referred to here from time-to-time…

      And now, imaginary support from major media personalities.

    27. Evan3457
      November 4th, 2013 | 2:02 am

      Kamieniecki wrote:

      Did you know that the Tigers are now 4-3 in the last 3 years in playoff series, but 17-18 in games won and lost, despite have the greatest rotation since…
      @ Evan3457:
      The Cashman Autonomy Era:
      New York Yankees Postseason Record
      Payroll: $1.9 Bil. – $2.1 Bil.
      Postseason Winning Pct.: .490
      A.L. Pennants: 1
      World Series Titles: 1
      Meanwells: 1
      Projected 2014 Starting Rotation: Sabathia, Nova, T.B.D., T.B.D., T.B.D.
      Detroit Tigers Postseason Record
      Payroll: $1.0 Bil. – $1.1 Bil.
      Postseason Winning Pct.: .521
      A.L. Pennants: 2
      World Series Titles: 0
      Meanwells: 0
      Projected 2014 Starting Rotation: Scherzer, Verlander, Sanchez, Fister
      @ Evan3457:
      The joke is on you, fool:

      Not one bit of which negates what I wrote.
      Keep flailing, chump.

      You’re the one who’s been defending the record of this G.M. for years – and under this G.M.’s watch, the team has won comparatively little in relation to Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Philadelphia, San Francisco, St. Louis, Texas – even Colorado, Houston, and Tampa Bay.
      And will not compete for a Pennant again for years to come; this organization’s a mess from top-to-bottom.
      Not surprising, since you don’t understand the game at all

      Yeah, LOL, like you would know, chump.

      From a business standpoint or otherwise. If you did, you wouldn’t post the comments you have; anyone who writes, “Prove to me it’s the pitching, and not the hitting, which determines the outcome of a series,” simply doesn’t understand this game – this game is about pitching.

      As proven again this post-season, with both pennants and the title won by the best hitting teams in both leagues, right, chump?

      The Boston Red Sox have 3 World Series Titles since 2004, and are well-positioned for 2014 and beyond – F**k Beane; I’m sick of the guy’s name. He’s one G.M.

      And now, Billy Beane doesn’t know what he’s talking about either.
      What a colossal chump you are! You praise his accomplishments as GM relative to Cashman, and now, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

      Oh well, having six personalities all talking inside your head must make it tough to keep track today of all the B.S. arguments you made yesterday.

      It HURTS to see a man you notionally respect metaphorically strip you naked like that, doesn’t it. Well, your problem, not mine.

      An argument that Beane’s teams wouldn’t have won more in the postseason with $140-70 million more in payroll each year since 2000

      They probably would have, because they could hardly have won less in the post-season. But no one can be sure, can they.

      isn’t even worthy of one more courtesy of a reply

      Yet you chumped yourself again by replying anyway. LOL!

      Get help.

      I’m doing just fine, thanks. I haven’t had this much to laugh about in a long time. And as I mentioned above, I ain’t the one with ego and arguments so weak as to need to pretend to be six different people just to shore them up. That would be you, Sybil.

    28. Mr. October
      November 4th, 2013 | 2:46 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      What was the concept?

      @ McMillan:
      The principle is replacement of the DH with a rule that permits 2 chances to substitute a hitter without removing a player from the lineup in 9 innings, and 1 chance in extra innings.

      There can be variations on this theme:

      for only the pitcher’s spot in the order, or for any spot?

      If you substitute a hitter in a 2nd inning run-scoring opportunity, is the hitter used out of the game under the rule? Or can a hitter be “designated” at the beginning of the game, and hit in a 2nd inning, one more time in a later inning, and once in extra innings?

      Pros:

      Less radical rule change than the DH rule in ’73.
      Uniformity of rules.
      No issues with inter-league, postseason play, realignment, etc.
      Pitchers bat.
      More NL offense.
      Strategy.
      Shorter games?

      Cons:

      Players more suited to DH have to play the field.
      26-man roster?

      I was having this discussion with many journalists individually – not collectively – back-and-forth, for days in some instances, last year.

      Tom Verducci never replied to my first email.

      About 15 months later, Sports Illustrated and Verducci have “ideas” for what has become a sport more dominated by pitching: a “bonus at-bat” – or permitting David Ortiz to bat in a 2nd inning run-scoring opportunity (presumably after having batted in the 1st inning), without removing a player, at the expense of not being able to use the “bonus at-bat” in the later innings.

      Verducci’s adaptation is absolutely terrible (“Think the DH was funky?”) – people are ridiculing it, and rightfully so – but 2 entire paragraphs in that article literally could have be “cut-and-pasted” from the email I sent him last year – the two paragraphs that precede Verducci asking Ben Cherington what Cherington thinks of “his idea.” The only words that aren’t mine are something about a “Power of Choice” or a similar term Verducci uses. Unbelievable.

    29. Mr. October
      November 4th, 2013 | 4:22 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      That’s funny. Because a month ago, when the post-season started, Verducci wrote this article:
      http://si.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1208792/index.htm

      @ Evan3457:
      What else is new?

      This is more of the same “crap:”

      “Over the past 22 postseasons, only three teams with the most regular-season wins won the World Series (1998 Yankees, 2007 Red Sox and ’09 Yankees).”

      What else is new?

      “The Braves are the National League’s version of the Athletics… Atlanta has been ousted immediately in six straight trips to the postseason since 2002…”

      And Atlanta was ousted immediately in a seventh straight trip to the postseason in 2013.

      What else is new?

      “Before this season, Beane’s…. Athletics lost six of seven series while going 13-19, including 1-10 in possible clinchers and 0-5 in winner-take-all games…”

      And Beane’s Athletics are now 15-22, including 1-12 in possible clinchers and 0-6 in winner-take-all games.

      What else is new?

      Plus:

      “• Red Sox (97 wins): The highest-scoring and most patient team in baseball is vulnerable to power pitchers who attack the zone, such as the Detroit staff. Boston hit .213 against power pitchers, 11th in the AL.

      • Tigers (93): With Miguel Cabrera (.274, one HR in his past 22 games) playing through an abdominal strain, the mighty Detroit offense isn’t the same. The Tigers averaged 3.7 runs per game in September, down from 5.1 entering the month…”

      This is a pretty good estimation of what happened weeks later in that series: Boston hit below .210 against Detroit’s starters, their patient lineup was able to break through in the late innings, Cabrera was hampered by injuries, etc.

      And:

      “Conversely, teams that strike out often fare poorly in October… That would appear to be bad news for the Braves (tied for first in the NL), Pirates (third), Reds (fifth) and Red Sox (fourth in the AL), and good news for the Cardinals (14th in the NL), Dodgers (12th), Tigers (13th in the AL) and Athletics (ninth)…”

      And 3 of the 4 “Good News Teams” went to the Final Four – all four of which had the one of the four highest payrolls in the postseason.

      What else is new?

      The postseason is about pitching. And teams with higher payrolls should fare better in the postseason over the long-term with pitching.

      Beane doesn’t whine about a $60 million payroll.

      What else is new?

      I wouldn’t expect a $60 million franchise to do much better than .405 in the postseason in the long-term against the best teams and highest payrolls in baseball – and Oakland hasn’t.

      I regret having referenced something written by Verducci – he’s a plagiarist. If you really want to see crap – read Verducci’s “idea” for a “bonus at-bat” in this month’s edition of SI.

    30. McMillan
      November 4th, 2013 | 10:11 pm

      Mr. October wrote:

      The principle is replacement of the DH with a rule that permits 2 chances to substitute a hitter without removing a player from the lineup in 9 innings, and 1 chance in extra innings.

      It’s an interesting discussion. I like the idea of batting for a pitcher without removing him, and adding an element of strategy, but I’m not sure how you implement it.

    31. McMillan
      November 4th, 2013 | 10:13 pm

      @ Evan3457:
      Man… you really are a sick human being.

    32. Mr. October
      November 4th, 2013 | 10:43 pm

      McMillan wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      Man… you really are a sick human being.

      He really is. It’s not even funny anymore. It was funny when he came across as a relatively harmlesss school teacher, who still lived with his mother into his fifties and lived out a fantasy of being someone he’s not on a baseball blog, and needed to be taken down a notch because he knows nothing about baseball – or logic – but it’s beyond that now; the guy’s deranged.

    33. Evan3457
      November 6th, 2013 | 12:51 am

      McMillan wrote:

      @ Evan3457:
      Man… you really are a sick human being.

      I’m not. But YOU are.
      You really think you’re dominating things here, but you’re a loser from beginning to end, and you always have been, Sybil.

      This board was so much more human and decent before you showed up to troll it.

    34. Evan3457
      November 6th, 2013 | 12:52 am

      Mr. October wrote:

      McMillan wrote:
      @ Evan3457:
      Man… you really are a sick human being.
      He really is. It’s not even funny anymore. It was funny when he came across as a relatively harmlesss school teacher, who still lived with his mother into his fifties and lived out a fantasy of being someone he’s not on a baseball blog, and needed to be taken down a notch because he knows nothing about baseball – or logic – but it’s beyond that now; the guy’s deranged.

      And keep right on pretending you’re different people.
      Nobody’s fooled in the slightest by it. It’s OK, everyone reading here knows why.

      Keep flailing, cump.

    35. Evan3457
      November 6th, 2013 | 12:54 am

      Imagine having to pretend you have influence with any media or other real world personalites with regards to changes to the DH rule that’ll never happen anywhere other than in the fantasies of your six-part mind.

      I’d laugh if it weren’t so pathetic.

    36. MJ Recanati
      November 6th, 2013 | 1:01 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      This board was so much more human and decent before you showed up to troll it.

      Evan3457 wrote:

      And keep right on pretending you’re different people.

      True, on both counts.

    37. PHMDen
      November 6th, 2013 | 10:21 pm

      Evan3457 wrote:

      Beane agrees with me…

      @ Evan3457:
      From Chapter 9-3 of “Baseball Between The Numbers:”

      “The probability of the A’s losing all [four consecutive series from 2000-2003] is 3.5 percent, or odds of about 27-to-1 against… a 27-to-1 shot is unlikely enough that it’s still worth exploring whether there was something in particular about the A’s that made them less equipped for postseason play than their regular-season record would suggest…

      [After 2000,] the Big Three of Zito, Hudson, and Mulder established themselves, and Beane… began to pay more attention to relief pitching and outfield defense.

      By 2003, the A’s had become a legitimately strong postseason club…… It was neither bad luck nor a design ill suited for postseason play that did the Athletics in but a combination of the two… in 2004 and 2005 at least, Billy Beane’s window of opportunity had closed.”

      “If playoff success is truly a matter of luck, the A’s of the ‘Moneyball’ era are jinxed with the worst kind of it.” Branch, “The Curious Curse of the Oakland A’s,” The New York Times,” Oct. 9, 2013.

      Maybe that’s it, chump: Beane has been jinxed with the worst kind of luck; and Cashman has been afflicted with some kind of jinx as well?

      The New York Times does not seem to agree with you either, chump.

      @ Evan3457:
      Sorry, chump.

      @ MJ Recanati: