Tampa goes up 3-1

So Boston's down 3-1 in the ALCS. I do not feel this the way I once would have. I'm older, and my perspective has changed. The Red Sox have won the World Series twice recently. And they've got a management team that understands how to use its (formidable) resources in a game where 4 out of 14 teams makes the playoffs every year. So if they lose tomorrow, there's every reason to think that they'll be back in the post-season next year, and the year after that. So my angst is minimal.

Not to say that the last couple of games have been enjoyable. They have not. It's no fun to be out of it before it starts, and that's the way the last couple have felt. But if the ride is over for this year, it's been a good ride, and, while there will be, as there always is, some player turnover, the ride isn't over for this basic team. Next year's Red Sox, with Beckett, Lester, Matsuzaka, Papelbon, Ortiz, Pedroia, Youkilis, Ellsbury, Bay, Drew and others, will almost certainly be playing October baseball again.

And there's no reason to think that they CAN'T win this series. After all, their last seven ALCS games have come in "lose and go home" situations, and they're 7-0. (Time for the old "now they've got the Rays just where they want them!") They're extremely unlikely to win out again, but that's life.

I think that this is an appropriate time to quote something that a wise (ha!) man wrote just about a year (actually, exactly 52 weeks) ago:

Francona managed game 2 just fine, he managed game 3 just fine, he managed game 4 just fine. The players haven't gotten the job done - that's life - it happens. It's baseball. The idea that this 7 game series tells us anything about these teams that the 162 games of the regular season didn't is laughable. It determines a "champion" but it doesn't pick the best team - just the one who plays the best in 4 of 7. It is frustrating, and we would much rather see them win than lose, but the other team gets paid, too, and sometimes that's just what happens. The Red Sox certainly aren't out of this series, but the odds of them winning are not good. Whether they come back and win, or go down in game 5, this is an excellent team, with a good manager, that had a very good year. Winning the World Series is special and important, but the post-season is a crapshoot - the organization has to think in terms of putting together a team that can get there consistently, because that's how you win World Series - you get to the post-season and have a good run at the right time.

Really, I've got nothing to add to that...

The Red Sox win the pennant

Odds and ends and thoughts on the ALCS...

• I saw some whining from Cleveland fans about lucky breaks. They were legitimate. The Red Sox, in games 6 and 7, had a bunch of balls that fell in the right place, several infield singles. Of course, they went up 3-1 in the series by virtue of an awful lot of that kind of luck. Look at, to point out one example, the ball that Nixon hit that scored the winning run in game 2. A high pop-up that was just beyond the 2nd baseman, and not hit well enough to reach the center fielder. Look at the double that Sizemore hit to enable the Indians to tie the score in the first inning of game 5. And those weren't the only ones. Everything they hit for three games found a hole. When that dried up, so did the Cleveland offense.



• Apparently the umpires got the call right on the Manny ball in game 5. Which makes that the stupidest ground rule that I've ever seen. The ball was clearly over the wall - it had to hit an inch further on the top to be a HR?



• Cleveland has another legitimate gripe, from last night's game - Kenny Lofton was safe at 2nd. If that call goes the right way, Cleveland ties it in the 5th and it's a very different game.



• One of the things that David Pinto's pre-ALCS analysis (ALCS: Strikeouts are the key to this series) focused on was the strikeout rates of the Indians hitters and Red Sox pitchers, and the number of balls that would not be in play because of that. According to SI, "the Indians struck out more times (63) than a team ever had in an LCS." That makes a difference. Cleveland had a lot of well-placed base hits, but too many times never got the ball in play.



• I spent a day and a half preceding game 6 thinking that the absolute ideal beginning of that game would be JD Drew hitting a 2-out grand slam in the first to give the Red Sox a 4-0 lead. I certainly wasn't expecting it, but that struck me as about the most productive thing that could happen in that first inning. It did. And I may have been right. That game never felt competitive after that swing.



• There was only one game in the ALCS that was decided by fewer than 4 runs. The margins of victory were 7, 7, 2, 4, 6, 10 and 9. But the 9 run game and one of the sevens were actually very competitive. Game 2 was tied through 10 and then the Indians scored 7 in the 11th. Game 7 was a one-run game through 6 1/2 that wasn't tied in the 5th because of an umpiring mistake, and wasn't tied in the top of the 7th because of a coaching/baserunning mistake. Both got out of hand very late. (Actually, that could be said for game 5 as well, though after Boston scored in the third, it never felt as if the Indians were going to score against Beckett.)



• Last Wednesday, there was a hue and cry in the Boston media about who's fault it was. There were calls for Francona's head because a) he brought in Gagne on Saturday, b) he didn't drop Pedroia out of the leadoff spot, c) he didn't play Ellsbury instead of Drew, d) he didn't play Ellsbury instead of Crisp, e) he didn't pitch Beckett on three days rest on Tuesday night, f) he didn't pull Wakefield soon enough, g) he let Wakefield stay too long, h) etc., etc., etc. I addressed some of this at the time, but I wanted to touch on it again, to make a couple of points.
  
  
  1. Terry Francona (un-affectionately known in some circles as "Francoma", which should give you some idea of the intellectual level of the discussion) managed games 5-7, in which the Red Sox outscored the Indians 30-5, exactly the same way that he managed games 2-4, in which the Red Sox were outscored 24-11. The manager can't "make things happen." The players can. All the manager can do is make sure the right players are on the field at the right times, and Francona's been very good at it, even when it hasn't worked.
  
  
  2. If seven games between two teams tells you nothing about the relative quality of the teams, which I believe to be the case, what does three tell you? Nothing. Zip, zero, nada. But the Boston media can't, or won't, understand that, so we end up with Glenn Ordway previewing his "Big Show" on WEEI Wednesday afternoon by saying, "I think we might have to come to the realization - Cleveland's a better team." Maybe they are, but certainly 3 games wouldn't establish that. Based on the entire season, I don't think it's true, but the last week doesn't change my opinion a whit.

Timing is everything - AL Cy Young edition

I made a comment following game 1 of the ALCS that no potential Cy Young winner ever benefited more from the ballots being cast before the post-season started than C.C. Sabathia did this year. Game 5 just exacerbates that. When the balloting happened, I suspect that Sabathia won, though we won't know for a while. If they were to vote today, I think Beckett wins, and it isn't close. It is almost astounding how much things have changed over just three starts.

Post-season performance

	GS	IP	ERA	WHIP	IP/G
Sabathia	3	15 1/3	8.8	2.283	5.11
Beckett	3	23	1.17	0.609	7.67

This is where they were before the post-season started.

Through the end of the regular season

	GS	IP	ERA	WHIP	IP/G
Sabathia	34	241	3.21	1.141	7.09
Beckett	30	200 2/3	3.27	1.141	6.69

Based on ERA+, strikeout rate and some other stuff, I think Beckett pitched better than Sabathia, but not a lot better. And Sabathia had a huge innings advantage. But they've each taken the mound three times since balloting ended.

Through Game 5 of the ALCS

	GS	IP	ERA	WHIP	IP/G
Sabathia	37	256 1/3	3.55	1.24	6.93
Beckett	33	223 2/3	3.06	1.11	6.78

Look at how much those numbers have changed based on just three more starts. Sabathia went from a very small raw ERA advantage to a pretty big disadvantage. Beckett closed the innings gap without closing the games started gap. Just an enormous difference, and if the Cy Young voting took place today, based on everything that's happened so far, it's a no-brainer that Beckett should win.

League Championship Series - Objective predictors

I'll have more on the Boston-Cleveland series over the next couple of days, but I thought I'd look at a couple of objective statistical playoff prediction systems on the championship series. The Bill James Playoff Predictor is a toy, an exercise in curve-fitting that probably doesn't have much value. The Baseball Prospectus "Special Sauce" is also a curve-fitting exercise, with more in-depth sabermetric stats, and they think that it has some predictive value. (Follow the link below for more information.) But they're both objective - there's no opinion here, just plugging in of numbers into the formula.

Here's how the Bill James Playoff Predictor sees the League Championship series:

ALCS

1. 1 pt to the lead team for each half-game in the standings (EVEN)
2. 3 pts to the team that scored more runs (BOS - 3)
3. 14 pts to the team with fewer doubles (CLE - 14)
4. 12 pts to the team with more triples (BOS - 12)
5. 10 pts to the team with more home runs (CLE - 10)
6. 8 pts to the team with the lower team batting average (CLE - 8)
7. 8 pts to the team that committed fewer errors (BOS - 8)
8. 7 pts to the team that turned more double plays (CLE - 7)
9. 7 pts to the team that walked more batters (BOS - 7)
10. 19 pts to the team that had more shutouts (BOS - 19)
11. 15 pts to the team whose ERA was lower (BOS - 15)
12. 12 pts to the team that has been in postseason most recently or
    went further (BOS - 12)
13. 12 pts to the team that won season series (BOS - 12)

BOS - 100, CLE - 39


NLCS

1. 1 pt to the lead team for each half-game in the standings (ARI - 2*)
2. 3 pts to the team that scored more runs (COL - 3)
3. 14 pts to the team with fewer doubles (ARI - 14)
4. 12 pts to the team with more triples (ARI - 12)
5. 10 pts to the team with more home runs (TIE)
6. 8 pts to the team with the lower team batting average (ARI - 8)
7. 8 pts to the team that committed fewer errors (COL - 8)
8. 7 pts to the team that turned more double plays (COL - 7)
9. 7 pts to the team that walked more batters (ARI - 7)
10. 19 pts to the team that had more shutouts (ARI - 19)
11. 15 pts to the team whose ERA was lower (ARI - 15)
12. 12 pts to the team that has been in postseason most recently or
    went further (0)**
13. 12 pts to the team that won season series (COL - 12)

ARI - 77, COL - 30

* - The final standings show Arizona 1/2 game ahead of the Rockies, because Colorado played an extra game to get into the post-season. That game counts as a regular season game, but I'm not including it.

** - I've made the subjective judgement that the Diamondbacks 2002 trip to the post-season, with a different front office, different manager and (almost entirely) different players is no more relevant than than Colorado's 1995 trip.

In the two division series where the point ratio was greater than 2:1, the system was correct. That is the case for both of these series.


Here's how the Baseball Prospectus "Secret Sauce" rankings see the series. (Overall ranking is the sum of rankings in various pitching/defense categories, so lower is better)

ALCS

Boston (7.5) over Cleveland (48)

NLCS

Arizona (29) over Colorado (57)

So both of those objective systems point strongly towards Boston-Arizona in the World Series.