World Series Picks 4 teh Win!

[Kenrick]

At this point I think we'll see a 3 game sweep at home for the Cards to make the series 3-2.
Bruce

And Bruce just looks plain wrong.

But seriously, even if you thought the Sox would win the series, who could have predicted this?

[schild]

Wtf, was today new avatar day? I guess I should get one.

[SirBruce]

RED SOX WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111

Well, at least when it went 3-0 I predicted the sweep.

Bruce

[pack1112]

I hope bill buckner can get a good sleep tonight!

[Kenrick]

I hope bill buckner can get a good sleep tonight!

Amen to that.

[Kenrick]

Wtf, was today new avatar day? I guess I should get one.

Yes and no, just rehashing and old one I had for a while on p2p.  I was getting sick of the weird slideshow one.

[schild]

I was getting sick of the weird slideshow one.

And I was just starting to warm up to it. Whatwith a tele-tubby and all.....










Thanks for changing it.

[Kenrick]

And I was just starting to warm up to it. Whatwith a tele-tubby and all.....

Hey now, I didn't make it... gosh now I can't remember who did.  One of the regulars at p2p... schooled in some sort of photoshop program obviously... with a love for classic 70's/80's television, teh Jesus, and USA flag... Come to think of it, it might have been Pika.

[Shannow]

RED SOX WIN!!

and more importantly I win!!! .:P~~~~~

That was anti-climatic I have to admit. Total domination.

Oh and Ardent...let the NYY fans whining begin...

'Year Twooo thouuusand, Year two thousand...'...

[Paelos]

After seeing the result, I detract my statement about Cards v. Sox being the ideal series. I neglected to realize that the Cards would stop playing baseball. It was a slap in the face of the Astros and all their fans. They should be ashamed of themselves.

[Kenrick]

It was a slap in the face of the Astros and all their fans.

Yep.  It's entirely possible that the Sox could have swept us as well.  However, many of us feel that it would have been at least an entertaining series.

Oh yeah, and FOX and that Creed idiot suck ass.

[Paelos]

I think you had the pitching to win at least a game, if not take it to game 6 at the bare minimum. There is no way in hell you would have been swept with the hardnosed drive a wild-card team possesses. I was just appauled at how easy it was for Boston to win. Even if it's the team everybody loves, a sweep in the World Series is ultra-ghey. Especially from two teams who came out of seven game series. I don't think anybody, even Boston fans, thinks that qualified as a showdown between the two best teams in baseball.

It was the best team in baseball and a bunch of headcases who forgot how to hit.

[Alkiera]

Oh yeah, and FOX and that Creed idiot suck ass.

I listened to the game on the radio, and heard that guy sing.

Dear God, he should never ever sing anywhere other than a soundproof shower ever again.

Alkiera

[Shannow]

Yeah christ was he even from St. Louis? and even if he was couldnt they find anyone else??

I knew from before the playoffs started that St. Louis pitching would be suspect and its exactly the sort of pitching the Red Sox feast on...Not overwhelming stuff, relying on spotting your pitches..The cards pitches simply didnt throw first/second pitch strikes and if you cant do that the Sox lineup will take the walks and crap all over you.

Anyway the Cards were bound to lose, even the moon was on our side.

[Kenrick]

I knew from before the playoffs started that St. Louis pitching would be suspect and its exactly the sort of pitching the Red Sox feast on...

Right, we all knew they didn't have any aces (to say the least...).  But it was the lack of Cardinals hitting (aside from Game 1) that was the most shocking part.

[Margalis]

The Cardinals didn't accomplish anything. Terrible baserunning, terrible hitting, never leading the entire series, giving up runs in the first inning nearly every game, falling behind every batter.

They just plain looked awful. If I didn't know better watching them I would think I was watching a rebuilding team.

[Paelos]

It looked like they moved away from what got them there in the hitting department. They weren't playing small ball anymore and too many guys were getting down early in the count on bad swings. In the series, patience is the defining factor to hitting, not talent. Even the most talented guy can't get it done if he's swinging at a two foot breaking ball low and away.

[Shannow]

I think they were done for once they couldn't win Game 1. Also doesnt help Chris Carpenter was out.
Remember good pitching beats good hitting and in Schilling, Pedro and yes the biggest surprise of all Derek Lowe were simply phenomanal. Oh and Keith Foulke.

Still why Scott Rolen looked worse than Pedro at the plate Im not sure.

[Ralence]

It was the best team in baseball and a bunch of headcases who forgot how to hit.

  I completely agree.  Everyone knew the Cards pitching was suspect, and I'm pretty sure they were picked to come in something like 4th in their division because of it before the season started.

  I don't think ANYONE expected the Cards hitters to just completely not show up.  Statistically, their 2-7 was the best in the history of major league baseball during the regular season, so for them to lose games they could have easily won with offense, 3-0, 6-2, 4-1,  just makes it that much worse.

  The funny part is, as a 20+ year sox fan, even up to the last inning last night, the only thing that kept running through my head was, "oh no, this is where they're going to blow it".  When I woke up this morning, I had to check ESPN.com just to make sure they really had won.

[Kenrick]

  The funny part is, as a 20+ year sox fan, even up to the last inning last night, the only thing that kept running through my head was, "oh no, this is where they're going to blow it".

That same thought ran through my head when that leadoff single went right between Foulke's legs.

[HaemishM]

Sorry I haven't checked back on this thread. Shannow wins it and I will have to think of something suitably funny to grief title you with. Since Paelos wins as the Anti-Picker, the Cards should get on their bus and go to his house with their bats and cleats. Paelos is the Bambino for the Cardinals.

[Shannow]

Found why the Cards sucked so much..
Cause its hard to adjust Scott Rolens swing when your seeing 3 bats

[Paelos]

Sorry I haven't checked back on this thread. Shannow wins it and I will have to think of something suitably funny to grief title you with. Since Paelos wins as the Anti-Picker, the Cards should get on their bus and go to his house with their bats and cleats. Paelos is the Bambino for the Cardinals.

Hey now, I was...but I....

Meh, it's not like they can hit anything now anyway, let them bring it on.

[Shockeye]

I think this could get unstickied. But then again, what do I know?

[Shannow]

So while its still here...

Anyone up for a quick Johnson vs Clemens Cy Young debate?
Ive come to the conclusion that the baseball writers of America are about as clueless as your average bleacher fan. Johnson beats Clemens in EVERY pitching statistic but loses out because the HITTERS on his OWN team suck arse.
  As far as I know the Cy Young is the award for best pitcher not best pitcher on a good team. If Johnson had been on the Astros he wouldve won 22+ games. Oh did I mention that he tossed a perfect game? Seriously some of these writers should be fired, the f'ing stupid reasons they come up with not to vote for certain players: Pedro loses MVP in 99 ONLY because one writer thinks 'pitchers should never win the MVP', pitchers only stat that matters is Win Losses.  Seriously how do these fucktards get their jobs? If your getting paid to write about baseball then you should at least take some F'ing time to actually put some thought into your vote.
If Schilling wins the Cy Young tmw I'll fucking bludgeon someone to death with a Loiusville.

Now, Haemish, where the f is my title.

[Shockeye]

Johnson beats Clemens in EVERY pitching statistic but loses out because the HITTERS on his OWN team suck arse.

I'm pretty sure wins are a statistic but I could be mistaken. Bud Selig may have changed that in the last few years and I missed it.

[Shannow]

Johnson beats Clemens in EVERY pitching statistic but loses out because the HITTERS on his OWN team suck arse.

I'm pretty sure wins are a statistic but I could be mistaken. Bud Selig may have changed that in the last few years and I missed it.

Are you trying to piss me off? I said pitching statistics, not team statistics...and wins for a pitcher is as much determined by his TEAM as the pitcher himself. Johnson was 13! and 2 when his team SCORED MORE THAN 2 RUNS..think about that. His ERA was half a run lower than Clemens, he had the least hits per 9 innings by a NL pitcher since BOB GIBSON..ever heard of him?
Johnson was the better PITCHER, go out and ask any baseball manager or GM and say 'If, knowing their stats, would you have rather had Clemens or Johnson on your team for the year?' They would say Johnson.
He was the better pitcher and thats what the award is for.

Edit: Whoops forgot, Johnson only had 2 LESS wins than Clemens. Im sorry maybe Schilling should get the AL Cy Young over Santana because he has 3 more wins right?

[Kenrick]

I agree (even as an Astros' fan) that Johnson was technically more deserving of "best pitcher of the year" than Roger.  Although both had fantastic years, and provided many milestones and veteran leadership, Unit was better.

But there are only certain personal achievement awards that the MLB will hand out to great players on shitty teams.  From my experience as a fan, it's typically Gold Glove or Rookie of the Year.

MVP and Cy Young (AKA most valuable pitcher, in a way) seem to have an unspoken requirement of being handed out to a player on a team that at least contended.

I'm not overjoyed about Roger winning the Cy.  He comes and joins our team for one year, signs some I'll-travel-with-you-when-I-feel-like-it contract, blows the All-Star game in less than an inning, then blows Game 7 of the NLCS.  "Oh, but look I won lotsa games!"  Sure, we probably wouldn't have gotten there without him... but there are still some things about him that chap my hide.  I dunno.  I won't miss him after he retires this year (please retire kthx).

[Shannow]

Arod won MVP last year , mainly because there was a lack of other candidates. MLB doesnt hand out these awards, they are voted on by baseball writers around the country. Which goes to show most of them should be fired. If its a most valuable pitcher award then it should be named so, until then giving it to Clemens is a crock.

Clemens might not retire and lets face it hes not a bad pitcher to have around. That being said has the man won a big game EVER? And Im not talking like Game 3 of an ALCS Im talking, Game 7s, elimination Game 6s, clinching game 6s..etc...He sucked in Game 7 of the ALCS in 2003 too (though of course the wanks went on to win, no thanks to him)..

[Nebu]

The most telling statistics I look at for pitchers are BB+Hits/9IP and a comparison of their winning % vs. the team's winning %.  

               BB + Hits/9IP    Winning %      Team Winning%      ERA

Johnson     8.10 (1st)          0.533                  0.315               2.60(2nd)

Clemens    10.4 (8th)          0.818                  0.568               2.98(5th)

Looking purely at the personal stats, Johnson has a slight edge.  When you consider team impact, the 18 and 4 record of Clemens really stands out.  Also, it's difficult to hand such a major award to a team that has such a rough year.  

Put Johnson on a contender and he runs away with the Cy Young.  Sadly, I feel it was the supporting cast that dragged him down.

[Shannow]

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr for the millionth time...

Repeat after me: 'The Cy Young is NOT A TEAM AWARD. IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL AWARD. IT GOES TO THE BEST PITCHER, NOT THE BEST PITCHER ON A CONTENDING TEAM'

Looking purely at the personal stats, Johnson has a slight edge.

He has a decided edge, therefore he should win it.

When you consider team impact, the 18 and 4 record of Clemens really stands out.

We are not considering team impact, the Cy Young is a individual award. Clemens got his team award, it was called going to the playoffs.

Also, it's difficult to hand such a major award to a team that has such a rough year.

Again we are not handing the Cy Young to a TEAM it goes to the BEST PITCHER. And Randy Johnson was the BEST PITCHER.

Your not a baseball writer are you?

[HaemishM]

The worst part about all the baseball awards voted on by the MLB writers is that players on non-contending teams usually get jobbed. Hard. Unless there are really no other suitable candidates. Which is why Arod never got the MVP until last year, when no one else could be a legitmate MVP.

But don't worry, the MVP in the National League will just as much of a crock. Bonds will win it, even though it should be Rolen or Pujols. Maybe if all the opposing managers hadn't turned into complete pussies and actually pitched to Bonds, he might have the numbers to clearly earn the MVP.

At first, I'd have said Santana should be AL Cy Young Winner, but after Schilling's performance in the postseason on broke-ass tendons, I'd be happy either way. I have no problem with Clemens getting the Cy Young, 18-4 is hard to argue with. But I also have no problem with Johnson getting the Cy Young, because he was on a shitty team. I don't feel quite so outraged about Johnson not getting it because he has gotten it before.

And I've been too busy to think up a suitable grief title.

[Nebu]

Grrrrrrrrrrrrr for the millionth time...

Repeat after me: 'The Cy Young is NOT A TEAM AWARD. IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL AWARD. IT GOES TO THE BEST PITCHER, NOT THE BEST PITCHER ON A CONTENDING TEAM'Again we are not handing the Cy Young to a TEAM it goes to the BEST PITCHER. And Randy Johnson was the BEST PITCHER.

Your not a baseball writer are you?

No, I'm not a sportswriter... my poor writing should make that obvious.

Johnson's lack of 18-20 wins vs 14 losses is what I feel killed his chances.  I (like yourself) feel that Johnson's statistical package was better than Clemens this year, especially when considering that he pitched in one of the top hitter's parks (Coors, Fenway Park, Skydome in Toronto, and Wrigley Field were also high in run production).  

Looking at the Cy's given since it's creation in 1956, I could not find a single pitcher with as many losses as Johnson that wasn't a) a reliever or b) a 20 game winner.  Johnson's 14 losses were only equalled or surpassed by (I'm only considering starters here): Randy Jones (22-14) and Gaylord Perry (24-16).  

Now Randy Jones may be a good case for Johnson being awarded the Cy this year.  Let's take a look: Jones pitched for a 5th place team in its division with a 0.611 winning % vs. a 0.451 for the team.  To his credit, Jones led MLB in wins, BB+hits/9ip, complete games, batters faced, games started, Innings pitched and hits allowed despite being on a losing team.  Randy Jones carried the Padres in 1976. The same could be said for Johnson and Arizona. Now let's compare Johnson to Jones.

Johnson's rank in important categories: ERA (2nd), Wins (5th), BB+hits/9IP (1st), Hits allowed (1st), IP (2nd), K's (1st), Games Started (1st), Complete games (4th) Shutouts (3rd), Batters faced (3rd).  

Looking at this objectively, I agree that given all factors (park, run support, etc.) that Johnson is the better pitcher (between he and Clemens)and deserving of the Cy Young.  I think the stat that failed him most was that having 14 losses was a hurdle that sports writers felt they could only overcome with 18-20 wins.  It's not fair, I agree... but that's the way it goes in this game.

EDIT: Please note that I'm offering these as observations and not trying to argue.  Awards such as the Cy have very subjective components to them and occasionally go to pitchers that the writers want to see get the award. Giving the Cy to Clemens may have been the path of least resistance in this case even though the statistics (other than Win/Loss) are overwhelmingly in the favor of Johnson when you consider park and supporting cast.

[Shannow]

At first, I'd have said Santana should be AL Cy Young Winner, but after Schilling's performance in the postseason on broke-ass tendons, I'd be happy either way.

I wouldn't be and I'm a Sox fan. The reason they decide these awards before the playoffs is so that pitcher on non-contending teams have a chance (admitingly Santana was on a playoff team). Santana was by far and away the better pitcher and will win, thank goodness, because he was on a competitive team.

[Nebu]

Santana was by far and away the better pitcher and will win, thank goodness, because he was on a competitive team.

I had hoped that I made my point, but it looks like I fell short.  It isn't a prerequisite that a pitcher be on a winning team to win the Cy Young.  The fact is that pitchers from losing teams have more of an uphill battle.  Pitchers from losing teams will have a weaker supporting cast which often results in a)more losses due to lower run support and b) an inflated ERA due to fielding.  

What was amazing to me was that RJ managed to compile a great ERA and 16 wins despite the rest of his team.  Had he managed to tie Clemens in wins, his 14 losses would have been less of a factor.  Furthe, I'll bet he would have done much better in the voting.

Looking at Santana, there is a statistic that many of us historical baseball fans like to follow called the ERA+.  ERA+ is a number that rates pitchers to the average pitcher in MLB (i.e. an average MLB pitcher would receive a rating of 100) and is adjusted for many factors including team and park effects.  Looking not only at statistical categories but also the ERA+, Santana is the best pitcher in baseball for 2004.  He leads in 8 statistical categories and had a 20-6 record.  If he doesn't win the AL Cy, it will be a travesty.