Subscribe via RSS Feed

Game 5

[ 32 ] October 20, 2010 |

I see no reason why this needs to go back to Texas.

Share with Sociable

Comments (32)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Erik Loomis says:

    In a related story, is there any reason to believe that Derek Jeter is a better player than Elvis Andrus at this point? And I am fully aware of Andrus’ .300 SLG.

  2. SP says:

    I’d think as a reasonable liberal you’d at least have some sympathy for a team trying to beat a George Bush-funded enterprise. If not for the Rangers, possibly Bush never becomes Gov or Pres. It made me happy to see sad Nolan sitting next to sad GWB after the game 1 implosion.

    • 4jkb4ia says:

      But George Bush should have stayed in baseball. He was much better at that than politics.

      • rea says:

        I can recall reading an account of the dismissal of Fay Vincent that mades the (somewhat frightening) point that in the context of baseball owners, GWB was pretty damn reasonable and sensible. It’s only out in the real world that the man’s damn fool side became exposed

        • NBarnes says:

          Says more about the idiocy of the majority of baseball’s ownership than about GWB. Baseball is full of people that make the Koch brothers look like paragons of civic spirit and sober self-assessment.

    • NonyNony says:

      A valid point. OTOH we’re talking about the Yankees. And Bush has nothing to do with the Rangers anymore.

      So on the one hand a team that has guilt by association with a war criminal. On the other the Yankees. Hmmmm.

      Okay you changed my mind. I’m no longer rooting for the Rangers to win. I’ll settle for just rooting for the Yankees to lose.

      • R.Johnston says:

        While I’m a Yankees fan, I feel it’s incumbent upon me to point out that the Yankees’ current association with Rudolph Giuliani is not significantly different than the Rangers’ current association with George W. Bush. And the only reason Giuliani isn’t a war criminal on par with Bush is lack of opportunity.

        • wengler says:

          Giuliani’s crime was negligent homicide in never replacing faulty radios and locating his command center smack dab in the middle of a major terrorist target, you know so he could cheat on his wife there. Along with all the security consultant scamming of course.

          Bush’s crime was a war against the peace, using the concept of preventive war. A concept that didn’t meet the test at Nuremburg, causing its adherents to hang.

          In the end, I can always root against the winner in the World Series, therefore the Yankees must lose. Always.

  3. 4jkb4ia says:

    Jeff Francoeur strikes again.

  4. joejoejoe says:

    Me like cookies. – C.C. Sabathia

  5. TT says:

    Oddly enough, with Teixeira out, I think the Yankees have a decent chance of winning tonight. Nobody expects them to, and the Rangers have been simply brilliant this series, so the pressure is off (relatively speaking–it is New York, after all).

    But I just don’t see either the Rangers or the Yankees winning it all. Even though the Phillies’ lineup has been God awful this postseason, I think they’re still the favorites. But the Giants have combined terrific pitching with timely hitting. So who knows?

  6. Joe says:

    Sabathia wasn’t going to have two bad games. This was fairly predictable.

    • R.Johnston says:

      Sabathia had a pretty bad game. Eleven hits in six innings sucks. He got lucky and those hits didn’t become lots of runs, but that’s no basis for accusing him of not having a bad game.

      • Joe says:

        Didn’t know not having a bad game is an accusation as such or that we have to go by number hits now. He gave up two runs, helped by no walks. When it mattered, he got the job done.

  7. LosGatosCA says:

    Funny, with the Texas Rangers going bankrupt, I thought Bush NEVER left baseball.

  8. howard says:

    given critiques of pitcher-centrism on my part, i do love noting that when the yanks get a quality start they have an excellent chance of winning and when they don’t they don’t.

    now as it happens, professional obligations this afternoon meant i had to follow the game very intermittently via mlb.com on an iphone, and this certainly wasn’t a dominant sabathia performance, but 7 Ks and 0 walks is how he survived 11 hits, and permitting hits but shunning runs is a reasonably good piece of pitching.

    (for no other reason than that it’s october, i’m reminded of one of my alltime favorite pitching performances, perhaps second only to jack morris in game 7 of the 1991 world series, was luis tiant in game 4 of the 1975 series against the big red machine in which he had absolutely nothing, no command at all, and yet out of sheer (pardon me, guys, but this is the only way to explain) pitching obstinancy and smarts, he threw a 163-pitch complete game 5-4 win. just extraordinary how he could beat the big red machine with no stuff at all.

    p.s. for those of you too young to remember el tiante at his best, think el duque but with better stuff and more windup variations, and then go read roger angell on tiant in the ’75 world series….

    • R.Johnston says:

      permitting hits but shunning runs is a reasonably good piece of pitching.

      No, not really. It’s lucky. If you give up nearly two baserunners an inning and line drives to 30% of the batters you face, you’re going to have a bad result on runs considerably more often than not and it’s not going to be bad luck when that happens. Texas was teeing off on Sabathia’s fastball tonight. All 11 hits were on the fastball, and, with a couple of exceptions, they were hit hard. If a few line drives fell in the gap or down the line rather than in front of fielders, and if Sabathia didn’t get a couple of timely double plays, it would have been ugly.

      • Joe says:

        Many successful pitchers give up a lot of hits but by “timely” (did he have nothing to do with them?) double plays and so forth get the job done. He didn’t pitch particularly well, but he did the job. His competitor gave up less hits, but four walks, and give up “timely” homers. Not giving up walks or homers allows more hits to not be painful.

        • Scott Lemieux says:

          given critiques of pitcher-centrism on my part, i do love noting that when the yanks get a quality start they have an excellent chance of winning and when they don’t they don’t.

          Right, but this is a tautology. Obviously, you are more likely to win when you allow fewer ones, but this says nothing about relative responsibility shared by the pitcher and the opposing hitters. Amazing how the same Yankee starters are much more likely to get quality starts against the Twins than the Rangers or Red Sox.

        • R.Johnston says:

          The ability of pitchers to pitch for the double play is vastly overestimated. Some pitchers generally induce more ground balls and therefore more double plays, but that’s not a matter of pitching to the situation.

          In any event, both double plays were on belt high fastballs. To whatever extent a pitcher can pitch for the double play, that’s not the pitch he does it on. The Hamilton double play in particular was on a belt high fastball over the middle of the plate, a pitch more likely to have been a three run home run than a double play. It was a terrible pitch, especially considering the batter, and CC got away with it.

    • mpowell says:

      Your argument is degenerating into sheer idiocy. There is a reasonable case to be made that when starting pitchers play well, it makes an enormous contribution to their team’s chance of winning. But it takes a certain foolish obstinance to insist that a pitcher can give up a lot of hits but still avoid giving up runs by smarts and willpower and that this is what constitutes a quality start. We know that in a general case there is an extraordinarily strong correlations between giving up hits and giving up runs. Going at-bat by at-bat without considering ordering, we would not consider that CC pitched very well. And there is no evidence that pitchers can consistently control the relationship between ERA and per at-bat measures of pitching performance. So you are arguing against everything statistical analysis has taught us about pitcher performance that it was CC’s ability rather than luck that contributed to the timing of hits and outs in this game. And that’s before you even get to watching the game and observing the quality of ball striking that resulted in outs.

      But also, your claim that quality starting pitching wins games has now been demonstrated (by you) to be merely a tautology. Don’t give up a bunch or runs in the first 5-6 innings; yep, that’ll help you win games. But your definition is not closely tied to the quality of pitchers a team has at its disposal, just a post-hoc evaluation of whether their ‘performance’ meets your criterion unless you believe that something that appears by all measure to be luck is really not.

      • howard says:

        since i’ve been travelling i missed the various pieces of colorful response, particularly m.powell’s, and now it’s probably too late, but please: if we’ve reached the point where the assumption is that random chance and luck are the only things going on in a game, i have to wonder exactly what the point of watching the game is.

        that said, i made a general point that seems utterly banal to me: sabathia wasn’t dominant, but he didn’t walk anyone and he struck out 7 in 6 innings and gave up a solo homerun (i.e., mpowell, the very stats that the pitcher “controls” the most, just to show you that i am au courant even though i don’t confuse baseball players with strat-o-matic approximations of baseball players – it wasn’t just luck that he ended up working out of trouble.

        as for scott and others, you seem to be missing the point: of course the better hitting a team you face, the more your secondary calibre pitchers are going to be exposed.

        that’s why i evaluate teams chances of winning a world series first and foremost on whether they have enough pitchers likely enough to hold the other guys to 4 runs or less, game in and game out. and that’s why, for example, i thought the only year in the last decade that the yanks had good enough pitching to win turned out to be the year they won.

        it is, in this regard, instructive that the ’96, ’98, ’99, ’00, and ’09 yanks (for whom i know this to be true; i suspect this is often true of the world series champ) both averaged fewer runs per game than in the regular season and a larger margin of victory than in the regular season.

        i’m dubious this year their pitching is good enough to win, and i said so at the start of the playoffs: what’s so shocking? scott has it backwards here: i’m not overrating phil hughes (who is basically a #3 starter who, at his very best, could be mike mussina) just because he beat the twins; i’m questioning whether the yanks can win the series because phil hughes is getting 1/3 of the post-season starts….

  9. Xenocrates says:

    Guess you didn’t get your wish, Scott; we are headed back to Arlington. I feel pretty good about our chances tomorrow night, but with Lee scheduled to come back for Game 7, it may well be a Texas appearance in the WS after all. We shall see, and of course, we have another “must win” tomorrow. Go Yankees! (Just to piss you off…)

  10. anniecat45 says:

    I don’t want to go back to Philadelphia this weekend, either.

  11. c u n d gulag says:

    They’re not dead yet. Like the knight in “The Holy Grail,” until they hack off that 4th limb, the Yanks are still in it.
    Kudo’s to Boston though, who, in ’04, managed to win with no limbs left, only their head, which was good enough when they got into A-Rod’s when he was batting.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.