No Way Rays, Boston or New York will win the East
by Jason Collette on Jul 28, 2008 9:26 AM EDT
82 comments
I was already in a foul mood this morning for a few reasons. One - it's Monday, and I'm coming off a weekend where I had to put in 20 hours of overtime for work to fix a lot of messes. I sit down to my Google homepage which shows the title above from this article.
In every other precinct outside New York and New England, there remains the hope that baseball's feel-good story still can deliver the goods. The Tampa Bay Rays making the postseason would be as close as baseball has come to the '69 Mets since . . . well, since the '69 Mets.
If you are objective, then it would be impossible for you not to embrace the Rays, a collection of underpaid kids and overachieving veterans managed by a smart baseball man named Joe Maddon who have captured the sport's collective imagination for the season's first two-thirds.
Even this morning, the Rays wake up clear of the behemoths, a game up on the Red Sox and three up on the Yankees. They are 18 games over .500, they are already but nine games shy of the all-time franchise record of 70 wins set four years ago, when they still had a Devil in their name, the only time in their decade of existence when they finished out of last place.
It would be a hell of a story, the Rays finishing ahead of the Red Sox, ahead of the Yankees. A hell of a baseball story. A hell of a Cinderella story.
Too bad it isn't going to happen.
This kind of snobbery should not be a shock coming from a joke of a paper that is widely considered a tabloid and an insult to journalism, but it is this kind of attitude that just pisses me off - and should piss off the Rays as a team.
It leaves the Rays, who this morning still lord over the Sox and the Yanks, who have refused to submit even as the footsteps behind them have grown louder and more threatening. They are a good story. Easy to root for. And unless this weekend was merely a terrible tease, just a week or two away from seeing a couple of blurs zip by them in the passing lane.
I'm tired of reading about everyone waiting for this team to fail because they're in Tampa and not in the Northeast. Why not focus on the best storyline of all: a team with 1/5th of the Boston payroll and 1/10th of the New York payroll is in 1st place on July 28th.
0 recs |
82 comments
Email
Print
Comments
They obviously haven't watched us
Once the author referred to Joe Maddon as “smart”, it was obvious he has not followed the Rays very closely.
by alorfi on Jul 28, 2008 10:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Why shouldn't Maddon be considered smart?
by R.J. Anderson on Jul 28, 2008 10:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The Rays aren't undefeated?
Longlorious.
Free Kila Kaaihue!
by RATW on Jul 28, 2008 10:45 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maddon is well on his way to winning Manager of the year
The one coherent thing this article had in it was the fact that Joe is a smart baseball guy. Give the man some credit.
Blake
USF--Class of '09
by usfraysfan on Jul 28, 2008 1:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I hate the attitude
But the author is right. If the Rays continue to play this way (as they have the past few weeks) then they will not make the playoffs and could very well finish 4th in the division. We haven’t exactly played very well lately.
Now personally I think we will get back on the right track and I think we will win the division. But I can easily see the argument that the Rays are faltering. Teams that struggle to score 2 or 3 runs a game just can’t stay in it for the long haul. I hope we get back to where we were.
by matthan on Jul 28, 2008 11:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed
Heck, forgetting that Boston and New York are both improving themselves for the stretch run more than the Rays are, if each team has a winning percentage equal to their Pythagorean up to this point, then the Rays end up out of the playoffs.
Point: To make the playoffs, either (a) the team needs to perform better than it has so far, (b) the front office needs to improve the team’s personnel or© the team needs to get lucky.
It’s not like we have a cupcake schedule left either.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jul 28, 2008 11:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Is it possible that NY and Boston are better teams?
The Yankees and Red Sox have much better lineups and have had them all year. The Rays have been bolstered by great pitching but the Yankees are improving.
I’m not saying the Rays shouldn’t make the playoffs, but it is possible that they currently have the least amount of talent out of the three teams. I also don’t know if one bat is going to make up the difference.
by tallyray on Jul 28, 2008 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Possibly, or we may be the better team
That is why you play the whole season. So far the Rays have been better through the entire season.
I’m just hoping that this slump will end soon.
by matthan on Jul 28, 2008 12:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Amen.
Did anyone see the Rockies making the playoffs during the last month of 2007? You have to play them all. ANYTHING can happen for any team…Injuries, good luck, bad luck, etc. Even in that one game playoff against the Padres some crazy stuff happened. Wasn’t it Garrett Atkins who hit a homerun that was incorrectly ruled as still in the park? The game never would have come down to the other crazy play that sparked the “Has Matt Holliday touched homeplate yet?” question. You can also refer to the ‘07 Mets for more evidence of ANYTHING can happen. The writers didn’t know shit at the beginning of the season, and the don’t know much more now if at all. Sure, I tend to believe that Boston has a more consistent and potent lineup, and the Yankees are definitely coming around as of late, but the Rays have shown that they can win with an all around team effort, mainly with the defense and pitching. It’s not going to be easy, but they have shown they can definitely grind this thing out and very likely come out as the winner of the division. Like I said, it won’t be easy, and it could be painful to watch at times. Just keep the Pepto or the Makers Mark nearby. Your choice…
Ditto on the slump thing too.
by rayweaver on Jul 28, 2008 3:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
NY and Boston are both better
and will remain so until we put together a lineup capable of surviving the AL East. We are far too one dimensional. 6-18 in the last 24 games says it all. And what do we have waiting in the minors? More pitching. Sorry, but we’ll just keep losing 2-1 and 3-2 until we do something to improve the lineup.
There isn’t any point in keeping every pitching prospect. We only have 5 starting spots to fill. Except for Price and Hellickson, they are all expendable (and that includes Sonny and Jax).
by RayFanNY on Jul 28, 2008 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Schedule.
Actually, the Rays have an easier schedule than both Boston and New York for the rest of the season…
by Peter Bendix on Jul 28, 2008 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh just because you wrote an article
Smartass
:-P
Anyway, my point was that, if there’s regression to the mean of our record from here on out, we’re going to miss the playoffs.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jul 28, 2008 11:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pythagoreans...
If the Rays regress to their Pythagorean record then they’ll finish 92-70 (regression won’t penalize for the five games they played over their expected, it just states that they should only be playing .538 baseball the rest of the way).
So the Rays are 61-43 today, and their Pythagorean states they’ll go 31-17.
The Yankees are 58-46. They’re supposed to be a .550 team. Suppose we think they are now a .575 team, they should finish 91-71.
The Red Sox are playing like a .585 team and the Pythagorean record has them finishing at 94-68.
So, with the regression they still SHOULD be the wild card. The Sox seem like the favorite.
by tallyray on Jul 28, 2008 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK
I calculated this before last night’s game, and the Yankees came out on top. So it’s close.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jul 28, 2008 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clarification
before last night’s Sox-Yanks game.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jul 28, 2008 12:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
To be fair...
I only assumed that the Yankees have only improved by .25, from a .550 team to a .575 team. They may be better than that. If you assume they are now as good as the sox (a .585 team) then they would finish slightly ahead of the Rays.
by tallyray on Jul 28, 2008 12:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't normally link to myself,
But that was just too good of an opportunity :)
by Peter Bendix on Jul 28, 2008 12:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
did you build in home/away effects?
because the rays are away a lot of more than the two other teams, i believe
by Sky Kalkman on Jul 28, 2008 4:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well, the article is almost a month old now.
But as of today, the Rays will play 8 more road games than home games during the rest of the season, and the Yankees will play 6 more road games than home games.
The Red Sox will play six more home games.
by Peter Bendix on Jul 28, 2008 4:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maddon's good for a gaffe a day
Smart managers don’t hit Willy Aybar 6th when he’s batting under .200 against righties. Smart managers at least DH their hottest hitter (Navarro) when giving a day off on a hot Sunday. Smart managers don’t burn their 4 best relievers on Friday when their starter is throwing a 2-hitter and has a low pitch count… then have to go with their least-effective relievers later in the weekend. Smart managers don’t burn two MORE pitchers after Al Reyes puts the game out of reach.
Smart managers don’t fail to sacrifice leadoff doubles over to third three times each game in close losses (home against KC and on the road in Pittsburgh). None of those six leadoff men at second scored. Of the 48 leadoff runners at 2nd base we have had this season, Maddon has sacrificed only ONCE and only 8 have scored.
Smart managers don’t let their baserunners run in undisciplined fashion and then tell the media that they are supposed to “manage themselves”.
Smart managers don’t hit BJ Upton third.
Some doozies from last year:
Smart managers don’t announce they’ve pre-planned their players’ days off for the entire season in March regardless of injuries or pitching matchups.
Smart managers don’t call for pitchouts on 3-2 counts.
Smart managers don’t hit Ben Zobrist in the 2-hole to open the season.
Smart managers don’t hit Jonny Gomes and Elijah Dukes leadoff.
Smart managers don’t use their closer (Al Reyes) in a 9-1 game only to suffer a 9th-inning meltdown the next day because he was unavailable.
by alorfi on Jul 28, 2008 11:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Ah, so what you're saying is fans who pay attention to largely irrelevant things like batting order hate Maddon
Okay, I gotcha. Also somehow missing from your list was “Smart managers don’t hit Carl Crawford up in the order”, but I’m sure you just forgot that one.
by R.J. Anderson on Jul 28, 2008 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also, bunting?
That’s one of the reasons I consider Maddon smart, he doesn’t bunt.
http://www.tangotiger.net/RE9902.html
Learn it, love it.
by R.J. Anderson on Jul 28, 2008 11:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bunting and IBBs can be useful
There are occasions where they can and should be used. Pointing to a chart and saying a bunt is never a good thing (knowing that people actually can get on base with a bunt as well) is just intellectually lazy.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jul 28, 2008 12:02 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wait, backing up your claims with well-researched evidence is intellectually lazy?
FanShots are underrated.
by acblue on Jul 28, 2008 12:29 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If you read Tango's chart, you'll see that he agrees with Brickhaus.
Bunting CAN be the right move in certain situations. It’s just wildly overused, is the problem.
I root for the two worst teams in baseball, non-ironically.
by esoteric on Jul 28, 2008 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t think anyone here disagrees with that statement.
by RATW on Jul 28, 2008 4:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which is illustrated by saying "here, look at this chart."
FanShots are underrated.
by acblue on Jul 28, 2008 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do I have to get off the couch?
FanShots are underrated.
by acblue on Jul 29, 2008 12:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, the chart does say that it's a smart move sometimes...
by Sky Kalkman on Jul 28, 2008 4:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly... But that sometimes is often over stated.
by tallyray on Jul 28, 2008 4:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i love the nested comments, but sometimes it's still hard to know what a comment is referring back to
I was pointing out that RJ’s link wasn’t claiming bunts are never a good thing. You use the RE chart to decide if it’s a good thing. (A WE chart is better.)
not that this comment was necessary.
by Sky Kalkman on Jul 28, 2008 5:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't look at the chart...
But I know one of the charts in “The Book” and “Baseball Between the Numbers” talks about how bunting is the right move in certain late game situations. They are just few and far between. For the most part the media overstates the few instances in which bunting is a good move.
by tallyray on Jul 28, 2008 5:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yup
i’ll mark you down as a guy i don’t have to convince of things like this if you do the same for me ; )
by Sky Kalkman on Jul 28, 2008 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Please tell me a smart manager...
So I can go through and pick apart all their flaws.
Maddon has done the best with what he has. How someone can have a 60 win team and be considered terrible is beyond me.
by tallyray on Jul 28, 2008 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Typical
foolish effort to evaluate a manager by listing specific decisions and ignoring his real job. Typical foolish effort to evaluate a manager without examining the reasoning behind decisions or placing them in context or balancing perceived errors of judgment against obviously excellent decisions. Typical effort to evaluate a manager having decided on the answer beforehand and then cherrypicking apparent (but totally meaningless) examples to “prove” the point. Typical effort to evaluate a manager by assuming some baseball truism and then noting that the manager did not follow it.
In other words, typical nonsense.
by bobr on Jul 28, 2008 12:10 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
If you read SoSH all season last year
You’d see something every day about how “FranCOMA” did something stupid to cost the Red Sox the playoffs.
Keep in mind that was last year, when they ultimately won the World Series.
When you’re overall successful, every mistake seems magnified.
Do not think that what is hard for you to master is humanly impossible; but if a thing is humanly possible, consider it to be within your reach.
by Orlando Rays on Jul 28, 2008 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of the 48 leadoff runners at 2nd base we have had this season... only 8 have scored.
Wow. Damn.
by Vin on Jul 28, 2008 11:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Bunting
Apples and oranges. Please try to stay on topic if you want to engage in meaningful discourse. I was not speaking of bunting in ALL situations, but only of those in which leadoff runners were on second with no outs. He had EDWIN JACKSON swinging, for goodness sake.
A historical review of the game reveals that one has a significantly enhanced probability of scoring a SINGLE run when they sacrifice a leadoff man at second over the third.
As a rule, I’m not a big fan of bunting in the new age of increased run-production. However, there are situations where a SINGLE run wins and loses games—and sacrificing is a highly-effective means of manufacturing single runs.
by alorfi on Jul 28, 2008 12:08 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Exactly right
When your team is winning with pitching and defense and your offense is struggling to score runs then you’ve hit the prime time to manufacture runs. When you have an offensive powerhouse then there is no need to give the opponents outs. Chart guys fail to see the different scenarios.
Another thing they fail to recognize is that importance of run #2 or run #3 on a weak offensive team such as the Rays is vastly more important than 1 run for a team that routinely puts up 5 or 6 runs a game.
Going along with that they ignore the score and the inning when trying to determine the proper move.
Frankly they just ignore situational baseball.
They just play by the book. And I’m not gonig to lie, and say that is a bad way to play. You are going to do very well if you play by the book. It is close to optimal, but not quite there. You need to add some situational variables into the equation which frankly they’ve found no way to quantify yet.
by matthan on Jul 28, 2008 12:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The importance of 2 vs. 3 runs
The Rays are 8-8 in games where they scored 2 runs.
The Rays are 6-7 in games where they scored 3 runs.
The Rays are 7-7 in games where they scored 4 runs.
The Rays are 13-2 in games where they scored 5 runs.
The Rays are 27-4 in games where they scored 6+ runs.
If you play for one run then you are in a coin flip type scenario.
The Rays are 40-6 in games when they score 4+ runs. The Rays are 14-30 in games where they score three or less.
It is just seems like such a let down when a team only scores 3 or less runs that it is easy to pick and choose situations they should have scored. The bottom line is that playing for few runs is never the right move. You’re getting in a coin flip situation to win games. When you try for the big inning you can better assure yourself victory.
by tallyray on Jul 28, 2008 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Playing for a few runs early in a game...
Not late… I agree there are times to bunt, but most of those occur in the eighth or ninth innings when the status of the game is much more clear. In the first seven innings you need to play for as many runs as possible.
The problem isn’t bunting, the problem is the lack of extra base hits.
by tallyray on Jul 28, 2008 12:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
OK nm my next comment
I was objecting to the ‘never the right move’ comment, but in the follow-up you’re acknowledging that it can be the right move.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jul 28, 2008 12:36 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I realized I didn't specify my comments
I think most of these situations have been early and not late.
by tallyray on Jul 28, 2008 12:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tally
I agree. I’d never argue that we should bunt in the first inning (or any early innings). But down 1 in the 9th against Rivera is a whole different story. Again it depends who is hitting and who is on base. But at that point bunting becomes an option that could be the optimal play.
by matthan on Jul 28, 2008 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Also there are just so many variables that need to be taken into account
What inning?
Score of the game?
Strength of the offense?
Stength of the pitcher?
Who is warming in the bullpen?
Who is hitting?
Who is on deck?
Bunting ability of the hitter?
Contact ability of the on deck hitter?
“Fear” of the on deck hitter? IE you don’t want to bunt then force an intentional walk
How many runs do you NEED to score?
How many runs would it take to take the lead?
How many runs do you need to have a “comfortable” lead?
The charts don’t answer all of those questions. The chart is a valuable tool. But there is a big difference between a 3 run lead in the 2nd inning with a man on than being 1 run behind in the 9th inning. And even still you could have Jason Bartlett up or Evan Longoria up, which throws another wrinkle in it.
by matthan on Jul 28, 2008 1:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The great thing about all those charts and statistics is they tell you what to do in the average situation
The problem is very few situations are going to be the average situation
by matthan on Jul 28, 2008 1:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a wildly incorrect statement.
FanShots are underrated.
by acblue on Jul 28, 2008 10:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bologna
In a low run scoring context, which the leage is almost back into, it’s still important to be able to play for one run, especially when the chances of scoring one is greater than the chance of scoring multiples. In a tight and late situation where you can call a play and have a 40% chance of scoring a run, or make a different call and have a 25% chance of scoring several runs, you need to take the high probability route.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jul 28, 2008 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Adding one more thing...
The Twins and the Rays have the same OBP and SLG this year, yet the Twins have scored 43 more runs. What’s the difference?
The Twins have attempted 51 sacrafices, the Rays 21.
Seems like that could matter.
What I think is much more important:
The Twins are batting .297/.361/.432 with runners on and .315/.385/.458 with RISP
The Rays are batting .251/.336/.397 with runners on and .247/.341/.382 with RISP
The Twins are “clutch” batting .286/.376/.435 with RISP and 2 outs
The Rays are not clutch batting .227/.334/.359 with RISP and 2 outs
The Twins have 500 PAs with RISP and 2 outs and have driven in 166 runs.
The Rays have 482 PAs with RISP and 2 outs and have driven in 126 runs.
We can blame bunting all we want, but the Rays aren’t scoring runs because they aren’t hitting with runners in scoring position. With two outs it is almost hopeless.
If you believe clutch is luck than the Rays are in good shape from here on out.
by tallyray on Jul 28, 2008 12:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clutch IS luck.
Or, at best, any true clutch “ability” is small enough as to be imperceptible and is masked by statistical noise, so for prognostication purposes, we can describe it as “luck.”
The Twins’s line with RISP demonstrates why they are unlikely to continue to score runs at their current pace.
by Peter Bendix on Jul 28, 2008 1:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Then it should also demonstrate why the Rays are lilkely to improve
without any significant additions.
by tallyray on Jul 28, 2008 1:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Except that
The Rays are hitting exactly as well with runners in scoring position as they are in all other situations…
by Peter Bendix on Jul 28, 2008 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Proof:
As a team, the Rays are hitting .258/.335/.408 overall; with runners on base they are hitting .251/.336/.397.
by Peter Bendix on Jul 28, 2008 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Teams should be hitting better with RISP though..
by matthan on Jul 28, 2008 1:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Multitude of reasons
I don’t think I’ve ever really seen a hitter with worse stats with the bases loaded than they do with the bases empty.
by matthan on Jul 28, 2008 1:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I understand the sample size is small for one single player
But take all the instances over the history of baseball and I’m pretty sure hitters do better with the bases loaded than the bases empty. And that is a pretty large sample size.
by matthan on Jul 28, 2008 1:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The numbers say...
That, if anything, batters are worse with the bases loaded – at least this year.
League average: .262/.331/.412
With bases loaded: .270/.308/.420
by Peter Bendix on Jul 28, 2008 2:20 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Data.
In general, OBP is higher with RISP but batting average may be lower. And, lo and behold, that is exactly what we find this year:
League average with no one on base: .260/.321/.451
League average with runners on base: .249/.333/.429
by Peter Bendix on Jul 28, 2008 2:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Strike that.
Why is there no delete button? Please disregard the above post.
by Peter Bendix on Jul 28, 2008 2:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Better data.
These numbers are correct, the above numbers were not.
League average with no one on base: .262/.331/.412
League average with runners on base: .268/.345/.418
I’d call that difference in BA and SLG negligible (meaning batters have the same ability to get a hit regardless of whether there are runners on base), and we do indeed see a bit of a spike in OBP (which makes sense, intuitively).
by Peter Bendix on Jul 28, 2008 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no clue where you got your numbers
I’m not sure where you are getting those numbers…
With no one on they are hitting .263/.335/.417
With RISP the number are: .247/.341/.382
The American League as a whole is hitting .258/.321/.405 with bases empty
The American League as a whole is hitting .270/.335/.412 with RISP
So the Rays are performing significantly were with RISP than no one on.
Using overall doesn’t show as signifcant as a spread since it accounts for the below average play with RISP. You can use Without RISP which would include runners on first but the Rays are hitting .258/.327/.416 with men on first, which is similar to their stats with runners on.
Once again it comes down to slugging with RISP which is down .025 where as the rest of the league sees an improvement.
by tallyray on Jul 28, 2008 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Last year...
The league was hitting .263/.326/.416 with bases empty and .275/.356/.424 with RISP, so the difference last year was even greater than this year.
Baseball-reference does not go back further (as I can see) on league splits but there seems to be a trend.
by tallyray on Jul 28, 2008 3:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pitching is winning games
When a team ERA is in the 3.8 range, you’d better win. Maddon not only has this tremendous pitching staff, but he has offensive stars of the caliber of Crawford, Longoria, Pena, Upton, Aki and Navarro. If one is objective, they may conclude he gets remarkably little from all that. Let’s not forget he is 189-240 as a big league manager.
by alorfi on Jul 28, 2008 12:11 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Also, his record is irrelevant
No manager could’ve won with the rosters of the past two seasons. Joe Torre was 286-420 as Mets manager, Terry Francona was 285-363 in Philadelphia.
by R.J. Anderson on Jul 28, 2008 12:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Maddon is getting better as a manager
Everyone can agree hes had his screw up, but he has managed a young roster fairly well. My beef is he can be a bit too loyal to some players, and that he forgets that they should be playing to win the freakign game sometimes. Most recent example was the Monday Royals game a few weeks back, and well all of the past couple years. Although to be honest that was more of the front offices doing than Maddon regarding the past couple years.
by matthan on Jul 28, 2008 12:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The biggest problem
is that Maddon’s most important job isn’t something quantifiable except via win-loss record. This is generally a young team, and most of the guys on the team have mostly been on losing teams. It’s a matter of maintaining the right mindset over the course of a full season. As the game physically grinds down players, it can also mentally grind down the players. Guys like CC, who have never been in a playoff race before, don’t necessarily have the self-discipline to keep in the right mindframe. The more focused the players are, the better they should play. While Maddon has made some errors in game calling, it seems like he’s done a good job from a motivational standpoint up to this time.
Vogt early, Vogt often.
by Brickhaus on Jul 28, 2008 12:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This kind of journalism pisses me off.
It’s just terrible. He spends 3 paragraphs finally getting to his point: The Rays won’t make the playoffs. Fine. That’s an opinion, it’s your column, whatever. Tell us why, Mike. Is it the 2.75 runs per game over the last 16 games? Is it the glaring weakness in RF?
Nope! It’s because the Red Sox and Yankees played a good series. How the fuck does that make ANY sense? Is his point that the two teams played hard? The Rays play hard, too.
Then he starts off a paragraph with the following sentence: “It’s just not logical to assume they can keep it up for eight more weeks while fighting off these two teams. It’s not practical.” In the rest of that paragraph, and in the next FIVE, he doesn’t even MENTION the Rays. If you’re going to make a point about the Rays, then support it. We could even think of a fancy name like “supporting paragraphs.”
I just don’t understand how somehow can watch a Yankees-Sox series and come to a conclusion about a different team. It’s not even like he said “The Yankees and Sox both showed a whole lot fire in Fenway, while the Rays looked lifeless in Kansas City.” That’s still a dumb point but at least it makes some sense.
This is bad, even by NY Post standards.
by Kevin Gengler on Jul 28, 2008 12:36 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
who cares
The Yanks are only 3 games back and the Sox are 1 game back and they just had what the media would call an epic matchup at Fenway. So of course they choose NOW to make such bold predictions. No surprise
honestly I wont be upset if we dont win the division anyways
The Yanks have been great for 10 games since the break, and the Sox are still only 1 GB so this is the perfect time for all those northeast jagoffs who have been so embarrassed for 2/3 of the season that they probably couldnt show their faces outside, to stand up and shout
by blazinrayz on Jul 28, 2008 4:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Everyone around the country knows...
Boston and New York will finish 1-2 in the East with the Rays flailing in the midst. When Tampa Bay doesn’t make the playoffs I sure do hope Friedman doesn’t look back at the trades he didn’t make to fuck the whole thing up.
Wait sunk the ship in baseball Andie! It’s time to make a trade Andie! Don’t be like the loser Mark Shapiro of the Indians who sat on his hands every trade deadline and ended up screwing the pooch. We’re about to look exactly like the Tribe unless Friedman grows some ‘nads! SHow us what your made of Andie, this opportunity may not arise again.
by John 63 on Jul 28, 2008 9:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I've never rec'd a post before...
But I really want to rec this.
by Peter Bendix on Jul 29, 2008 11:14 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
