LCS thoughts

One out away. As I write this, the Texas Rangers are one out away from their first postseason win in their home ballpark. One of the more unbelievable numbers that I have seen in a long time is the futility of the Rangers in their own ballpark in the postseason. I'll get back to that in a bit...


I don't know what's worse: being a Mariners' fan in our current state, or being a Twins fan. Even though I ask that question partly in jest, the Twins' inability to perform in the playoffs must simply be maddening for the fans of that franchise. As a Mariner fan, I thought we had it bad against the Yankees for those few years in the playoffs, but only now do I realize that it must be way, way worse to be a Twins fan, having been swept three straight times in first round, twice by the Yankees, and having amassed nine straight losses against the Bombers. It must be frustrating beyond frustration. I couldn't find anyone picking the Twins in that series because, history aside, they seemed completely and totally outmatched.

I kept flip-flopping on who I felt should win the LDS between the Rays and the Rangers. Ultimately it came down to who I felt had the best chance to beat the Yankees in the LCS. Although they won games three and four, the Rays offense seemed flat and lifeless. Unremarkable. They did (marginally) win the season series against the Yankees, so one could cite that as evidence to believe that the Rays could beat the Yankees in the second round, the Rangers just seem to have so much more potential and life with their first postseason berth since 1999. Aside from Cliff Lee, I keep hearing about how great C.J. Wilson's stuff is. One person said that Wilson actually has the best stuff on the staff, but Lee's command separates him from almost all others. Lee's command seems normally impeccable. Wilson is a walk machine, but is young with the potential to throw great games. If Wilson can find himself during the playoffs and get Lee some support, I like how rounded the Rangers' offense has become and I give them a real, real chance to take down the Yankees, even with Lee only starting two games. That's why I'm glad game five of the LDS turned out the way it did. Price is great, and he will have his moments to come, but now is the time for the Rangers' to make their run. They have power and speed. I like them.

Even though I picked the Phillies to beat the Reds, I did think the Reds would put up more of a fight. They didn't. Hugely disappointing for that city. Cincinnati must be wondering if things will go back to normal next year with the Cardinals taking control of the division. I certainly would...

I think by far the best LDS was the Giants/Braves. I didn't go five, and that's probably a good thing because I wouldn't want an anticlimactic game five to ruin what as an unbelievable series. Four one run games. Late inning drama. Rick Ankiel with one of the greatest sounding and looking playoff home runs I've ever seen in my life, and poor, poor Brooks Conrad. One terrible error, and one forgivable error at a terrible time sealed the fate of the Braves. For a guy who waited so long to get where he was, I don't want to imagine the feeling. Hopefully he'll get back there again in some capacity, because game three might be a day that he remembers in the quiet moments for the rest of his life. All said, I like the fact that the Giants won, because the pitching match ups for the NLCS are going to be epic. I think the Phillies at least match the Giants starting pitching, though I'm still unconvinced about their bullpen set up. If Lidge is solid, it could be enough, provided they can get the ball to him. The real tipping point in this series is obviously the offense. It doesn't take someone with a honed baseball acumen to realize that the Phillies, despite their inexplicable periods of struggling offensively over the year, can hit the ball very, very had, and run well enough. In a series where everything else seems more or less balanced, that is the key difference. Not only that, but Cole Hamels looked brilliant in his only playoff start last series, and that is cause for great home in the city of brotherly love because it looks as though Hamels is going to capture his previous playoff form in 2008. Hamels looked good in September, we might look back later at this as the sign that it was the Phillies' year. The Phillies will win, and they won't need to come back to Philadelphia to do it. Phillies in 5.

We might look back at the Texas/NYY series as one of the great LCS of all time. I certainly hope so. I hear from all the gurus that New York is heavily favored. I don't see how that could be unless one is putting all of that on the "mystique" the Yankees seem to have reacquired from the late 90's. As I mentioned earlier, I think C.J. Wilson might really turn into something special. With Lee going two games, that means that the Rangers have to win at least two games that Lee doesn't pitch. As I was writing this, they wrapped up one, with an unbelievably gutsy performance in game two. Game one was one of the hardest playoff games I've ever watched in my life. Texas, knowing everyone was picking against them, knowing people didn't think they could win games not started by Cliff Lee, had the Yankees on the ropes, ready to land the knockout blow. Then, unbelievably (and yet, all too believably) the Yankees rallied back. Walks, hits, shattered bats, like it was meant to be from the beginning, like the whole game was some elaborate tease to make the Rangers really, truly believe that they had something this year. The Yankees stole that away in one of the most crushing playoff loses I've ever seen in any sport. So close, games that Lee doesn't start are so, so precious, and it is snatched away, and still the Rangers must wait at least one more day for a win in their home ballpark. It must have zapped all the emotional energy from the Rangers. How they got out of bed to play today I'm not sure, but I am sure glad they did, because they bounced back and played brilliantly. When I was sure that they wouldn't because of the demoralizing loss the night before, they got that split they were looking for in their own park.

Before the series started I liked the Rangers to win in 7. I really believe in this team. After last night, I wasn't sure they would even make it back to Texas. I still like them to win in 7. Maybe for once I'm predicting on hope. I am projecting all my emotional frustrations from the Mariners' two playoff losses to the Yankees so many years ago onto this Texas team hoping they can redeem me and take down the defending champs (as they were the two times the M's played them). My head keeps telling me that the Yankees are the better team, but everything is going right for Texas this year, a place where nothing has gone right in the past. I keep telling myself that the Yankees' mystique and aura will allow magical things to happen (game 1) and more things will go right for the franchise where everything has gone right and where they always seem to get whatever they want. Yet, this hasn't really held true in the past. Sure, they are the defending champs, but between the years of 2001-2008, they came up short in the post season again and again. Maybe the mystique is something we have decided to resurrect ourselves because of our own fatalistic belief that the Yankees will find a way to win no matter what when, apart from last year, recent history has shown that they don't much more often than they do. Sure experience should count for something, but in the relatively short time that is the postseason, youth, vigor, luck and skill can kick experience to the back seat (2008 Rays?).

Finally I arrive to one final point of view espoused by Skip Bayless of ESPN. Bayless seems to think that the Rangers lost the ALCS when they lost game four of the division series and had to run Lee back out there for game five. Furthermore, Bayless believes that the Rangers should move Lee up to game two in order to front end the rotation. Bayless' first point has some limited value, but his second point makes no sense. The limited value of Bayless' first point is that if Lee didn't have to start game five then he could start game one of the LCS thus (theoretically) allowing him to pitch three games (games one, four, and seven) instead of two (games three and seven). Sure, that would mean that the Rangers, provided they win all the games Lee pitches, would then only have to win one game that Lee did not pitch. However, the shortcoming of this point is that this assumes Lee would be comfortable working two straight starts on two days rest and that he would be as effective doing so, neither of which are given. After all, there were no reports that Lee was rushing to offer himself to pitch game four in order to close the series out in Arlington even though some were thinking (wrongly, in my opinion) that that was the best choice. Granted, it was more likely that Lee was wise enough to know that we was only going to be able to pitch one more game in the series anyway and going on four days rest was much, much better than three days rest, but still the opportunity was at least there. One further point that needs to be made that no one is making is that Cliff Lee is not a machine. He's a man. His numbers in the playoffs are unbelievable, and to that point a little too unbelievable. No person, even as talented as Lee, can continue to perform at the rate he is performing, especially if you are asking him to pitch consecutive days on short rest. Lee, short rest or full rest, is going to come back down to earth eventually. No one should accept it as a given (even though so many people seem to be doing it) that the Rangers will win both games that Lee starts.

Now to Bayless' second point, that front loading the Rangers rotation by pitching Lee on short rest is a good idea. I do not see the point in this at all. Regardless of whether you pitch Lee in games two and six or three and seven, the Rangers are going to have to find a way to win at least two games that Lee doesn't start. There is simply no way that the Rangers can run Lee out there three times this series, and the only conceivable way that Bayless' point makes any sense is if you believe that the Rangers' losing the first two games of this series would mean that the series is over by the time it even gets to Lee. This is faulty logic because even if the Rangers lose the first two games of the series (which they didn't) Lee pitching on full rest in game three means that they will get back into the series in game three with two more chances to win in NY and bring the series back to Texas with Lee going in game seven. If you don't believe that the Rangers have any chance to win without Lee pitching, then it doesn't matter when he pitches because the series is over before it started. But since Lee can only pitch twice, and you have to win at least two games that he doesn't start, the only thing that makes sense is to pitch Lee when he has the best chance of success, and that is off full rest in games three and seven. Slice it any way you want, if the Rangers can win the first game that Lee pitches and two other times in the series, they have Cliff Lee on the mound at home in game seven with a chance to go to the World Series. I like that scenario, and I think that's what's going to happen. Rangers in 7.

Down the stretch of the 2010 baseball season, I had a reasonable hope that the Mariners would avoid a 100 loss season. Small consolation though it may be, we could at least say that the Mariners' season would not be among their worst in franchise history. It didn't happen that way, getting swept in the final series of the season. The Mariners certainly garnered attention, though it was not the attention that I was hoping it would be at the beginning of the season. All season the Mariners ranked at the bottom or near the bottom in runs scored, and with Cleveland finally breaking out the bats the M's secured dead last in baseball in scoring, holding consistent with their offensive struggles in the last nine years. Furthermore, with an abysmal September, the Mariners final offensive numbers ranked among the worst any American League team has ever put out since the advent of the designated hitter. An article in the Seattle Times cited a writer who said that the Mariners' offense ranks as one of the ten worst offenses in the last twenty years of baseball. All of this absolutely pulled the rug from under what was actually an above average pitching performance this year. This is becoming a familiar song for the Mariners and I think it's time to start considering reasons for this. Although Safeco Field actually yields more home runs than a few other parks in baseball, to me there seems to just be something about the dynamics of the Safe that do not favor particular offenses. Maybe because it seems like a hitter has to hit the ball six miles to get it out of left center field. I'm not sure, but I simply can't ever see the M's, even with hitting talent, being able to hit long balls in their home park.

Jack Z's email to the fans shortly after the season ended was attempted to reassure them that talent was brewing at all levels of the franchise's farm system. Perhaps he's right. The difficult thing about that is that there's never any assurance that it's going to pan out at the top level. I also have a hard time really trusting Jack Z's assessment of our farm system because other scouts have also described the same farm system as “barren”. At this point, it seems to be all the M's can really count on since the likelihood of us signing a major bat over the offseason is incredibly slim. It's disheartening to think that there really may be no solution, and the Mariners might find themselves in the doldrums that have sucked up the Pirates, the Expos/Nationals, the Royals, and the Orioles. The Tigers and the Twins only relatively recently escaped those doldrums and have been able to put up a consistently winning product. It truly is scary to think that some teams are bad not for years at a time, but decades at a time. There is no real assurance that the M's aren't finding themselves in the same situation right now. The only thing the M's might have for them now that the others don't necessarily have is a payroll that will not fill the bottom of baseball. The reality is that it takes years of harvesting draft picks and players, where major setbacks cost a team for years and can't simply be bought off by an expensive free agent like the Yankees and Red Sox seem to be able to do. It's a scary situation to be in.

2010 was described by one Seattle Times writer as the worst year in franchise history. Though the win/loss record certainly puts it up there, the immense amount of hope that was cast on this season by many writers who pointed to the Cliff Lee trade and the acquisition of Chone Figgins combined with the development of other plays such as Franklin Gutierrez and Jose Lopez as reason to believe that the Mariners could really put something together it what was expected to be a weak, weak AL West. Well, the latter part of the prediction was correct in that the AL West was certainly up for the taking. However there is no other reason to reach to to explain the Mariners inability to score runs other than there simply is no real hitting talent on the team, and there probably won't be for several years. Barring a major surge by several players or a hugely unexpected and productive offseason, the Mariners will hold the fort at the bottom of baseball in runs for several years and most likely also the bottom of the division.


Postseason:

Every year analysts and experts cite starting pitching as the primary reason teams either win or lose in the postseason. I have to object to this thinking on the grounds that the hitters are the ones who are charged with hitting the great pitching, and the hitters play some factor in determining just how good the starting pitching is. Let's not forget, that in order to win games, you don't need to prevent runs, you need to score runs. You can give up as many runs as you like so long as you are able to score one more. Although recent postseasons have been highlighted by amazing pitching performances (especially the White Sox in the 2005 postseason) what always stands out to me is clutch hitting, the tenacity to come from behind late and the ability to hit through less than stellar pitching performances from starters. Also, last post season marked one of the first times I can remember that so many games were decided by blown saves. At one point I counted six blown saves by six different closers. Of course, the truth of the matter is that no one thing is the determining factor in why a team wins or loses in the postseason, but all things play in balance and combination with each other. There is no different formula for winning in the playoffs than there is in winning in the summer. The game is the game. Pitch well. Hit well. Catch well (remember the Tigers in the 2006 World Series?).

Many people seem to be sleeping on the Yankees this postseason with all the questions that are surrounding their starting pitching. Andy Pettitte is coming off of injury, Burnett has been a roller coaster and subsequently not given a spot in the starting rotation, and Phil Hughes slowed down considerably from his hot start. Yet somehow for me there still remains this feeling that surrounds the Yankees when it comes October. Maybe because my earliest postseason memories all involve the Yankees having this unbeatable aura surrounding them. The Yankees, or course, are not unbeatable in the playoffs, as they just gone done demonstrating between 2001-2008. But why does this feeling still ring true for me? Do others still feel like this?

Like most people, I like the Yankees against the Twins. The Twins have a postseason record of futility against the Bombers that borders on astonishing. If they get swept, it will be their fourth consecutive sweep at the hands of the Yankees. For a team that has made six postseasons in nine years, the inability of the Twins to even reach the World Series must be a huge source of frustration for the franchise. I wonder when the Twins get to the point where they consider replacing Ron Gardenhire. I'm not saying that the Twins' inability to reach the promised land is Gardenhire's fault. I believe it is mostly not and that manager's get a hugely disproportional amount of blame (and credit) for their team's fortune's. I think it's mostly agreed upon around baseball that managers become the scapegoats that organizations can use in order to demonstrate their willingness to change to appease the fans. That's no secret. This just naturally leads me to wonder how many times Gardenhire can continue to come up short and keep a job he has done so well replacing Tom Kelley. It's not as though the Yankees are so much better than the Twins, but in the postseason they simply are.

The Rays and Rangers series was a tougher one for me to call. I really liked the Rangers from earlier this season when it finally looked like they had the pitching pieces together, especially with the acquisition of Cliff Lee. Some will point to the Rays starting pitching and their recent experience in the playoffs compared to the Rangers lack of experience, but the Rangers offense seems so much better than the Rays. I think this is an example of starting pitching not being the sole determining factor in playoff success. I liked the Rangers in four in this series, but it appears they may sweep after winning the first two games.

I don't anticipate the Phillies having any trouble with the Reds. The Phils have so much postseason success right now and the Reds are just back to the show. One of the biggest curiosities this year has been the Phillies lack of offensive consistency. For a team that has so much power, they went through some incredible offensive woes this year. In the end, they scored plenty of runs, but my only concern is one of those frozen bat spells popping up in the playoffs. I think the Phils will handle the Reds in four.

The Braves and Giants are an interesting match. I think this one goes five. It looked like the Giants might grab control until an impressive and inspiring comeback by the Braves last night. The match up seems pretty even, although the Giants have a definitive advantage in starting pitching. I like the Braves' offense better than the Giants, and the Braves play so, so well at home. That's why I think it goes five, with the Giants closing out at home after Cain pitches a brilliant game five.