You would think he would have been redeemed when he saved someone's life.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
MLB Postseason 2013 |OT| - Chicken n Beer-less Diet
- Thread starter Corran Horn
- Start date
vas_a_morir
Banned
I vaguely know what you are talking about, but I can't remember.
RumblingRosco
Member
Trust me, I feel you on this. I've come to accept that, as a Card's fan, I pretty much will be heckled for life for being one of the #BestFansInBaseball. And, yeah, Farrell has no idea how to use a pinch hitter in the NL.
BFIB
Member
Heard the game on the radio, finally got to see the highlights.
My .02, its the right call. The issue wasn't Middlebrooks diving for the catch, the issue that Joyce points at is him lifting his legs, which then blocked Craig from advancing. Did Middlebrooks do this intentionally? Obviously not, but the rules imply that once the fielder is the lane of the runner, its obstruction. If Middlebrooks lays prone, I doubt the call is made.
Being a Cards fan, it worked out in our favor. But there is no Red Sox fan that can sit here and honestly not be OK with the play if it were Freese on the ground with a Red Sox player making the same base running decision.
It was a great game, but not a good way to end it. There's been a couple odd plays this series, but this will stand out. Hopefully we don't see any of these types of calls the rest of the series.
My .02, its the right call. The issue wasn't Middlebrooks diving for the catch, the issue that Joyce points at is him lifting his legs, which then blocked Craig from advancing. Did Middlebrooks do this intentionally? Obviously not, but the rules imply that once the fielder is the lane of the runner, its obstruction. If Middlebrooks lays prone, I doubt the call is made.
Being a Cards fan, it worked out in our favor. But there is no Red Sox fan that can sit here and honestly not be OK with the play if it were Freese on the ground with a Red Sox player making the same base running decision.
It was a great game, but not a good way to end it. There's been a couple odd plays this series, but this will stand out. Hopefully we don't see any of these types of calls the rest of the series.
The legs had nothing to do with the call, or cause any singular effect to Craig's ability to get down the line.
BFIB
Member
I only got to see the one highlight, but it looks like Joyce points at Middlebrooks and calls obstruction after his legs lift?
I could be wrong, I'll need to watch it again. Just an odd way to end a game. Shame that's how it had to end, and you know, the Cardinals not taking advantage of a pitcher that was not pitching well. But that's our offense!
Joyce said that it was obstruction regardless of Middlebrooks lifting his leg or not.
BFIB
Member
That's a tough call then. Yeah, Middlebrooks is diving for the ball, but he could not move out of the way in time. Craig is attempting to hobble on essentially one leg over a person in his path.
Its the right call, again, just a shame that that's how the game ended.
He should have caught and held the ball in game 2 to keep it tied too. He's a mental midget that should never be in late inning situations in this series.
Carpe Libertatem
Member
Turns out Craig is okay.
Now to hope that Good Lynn shows up tonight.
Now to hope that Good Lynn shows up tonight.
Square Triangle
Member
Little Green Yoda
Member
At least we now know what the excuse will be if the Cards win the WS this year.
I'm really surprised so few players knew about the obstruction rule. Hell, I'm pretty sure Rolen deliberately ran into Inge during the 2006 WS and got an obstruction call and a run because of it. Players really need to know the rulebook inside out to take advantage of such situations.
I think if he throws strikes, he'll be okay. We really, really need to get Buchholz out of the game ASAP (hopefully by scoring a few runs at the same time) and feast on their middle relief. Dubront went two innings last night so I can't imagine him pitching more than one inning tonight.
Stranding a runner at third and no out (multiple times!) is not a recipe for success against a team as good as Boston.
Little Green Yoda
Member
:lol at thinking $40M is not that huge of a difference
I know you're a Boston fan to the core but wow lol.
The teams in comparison are the Boston Red Sox and the St. Louis Cardinals. No, it's not that huge of a difference.
Little Green Yoda
Member
A win in free agency is roughly 5-5.5 million dollars. So we're talking somewhere between 7-8 fWAR at market rates. That's an MVP type player.
The weakest spot on the Cards is SS. But if you want, you can say the cost of one win for the SS position is costlier than 5.5M due to supply/demand. So maybe instead of 7-8 fWAR, it's more like 5-6 fWAR for 40M at the SS position. That's still an All Star type player.
Pete Kozma was roughly replacement level. 5-6 wins above Kozma is Troy Tulowitzki. The Cards would be significantly better with an extra $40M to spend.
We can do this exercise for CF or 3B too if you think good SS are too scarce to be a good example.
This is all I needed to read. You can break it down in all sorts of ways, but they have the bank. Cardinals are regularly one of the top spending teams in the NL and the perennial division leader, maybe except a couple years of the Cubs if I had to guess.
When 3 of the 5 lowest spending teams made the playoffs, it's not.
Little Green Yoda
Member
I thought we were talking about the 40M difference between the Cards and the Red Sox? Not the difference between the Cards and small market teams? To wit:
I like how my stating that the gap between Boston's and STL's payrolls is significant is somehow twisted into me saying the Cards are poor though. The gap between STL's payroll and the small market teams IS significant, just like the gap between Boston's and STL's is significant. More money = more margins for error in baseball transactions.
Just because a few teams managed to make the postseason with shoestring budgets, it doesn't mean more money wouldn't have made those teams even better. All it means is that money isn't everything since a smart front office can mitigate financial disadvantages.
Similarly, just because the Yankees don't win the WS every year with their bloated budget, it doesn't mean their financial advantages are meaningless.
How are the Cardinals at a disadvantage because they chose not to spend money?
In that case, the difference between the Yankees and Red Sox isn't a big deal either, correct? You can't have it both ways. Or is 40M not a huge difference but 50M is really important?
I think the real lesson here should be how relative wealth affects our views. Has anyone here ever seen those statistics which show families making 300k+ often believe they aren't that rich? Impossible, you think. Preposterous, how can anyone be so out of touch. Well, here you go. When you're the third richest club in the majors, you'll insist that the difference between you and less wealthy teams "isn't such a big deal" while simultaneously arguing that the Yankees are ridiculously, unfairly wealthy. This is not intended to pick on Boston Red Sox fans, as I'm sure Cardinals fans would say the same about, oh, the Brewers. The point is that the human mind seems to always look up the ladder and be envious, regardless of how high they are on the ladder. Even if they're the second rung from the top, people will always find a way to feel like the guys on the first rung are totally cheating while everyone below them is fair game and the differences aren't all that important.
In that case, there is no valid criticism of the Yankees and you should have no problem with their spending. If your argument is that money doesn't matter, I mean.
You cannot have it both ways -- pick an argument, and stick with it. People cannot look up the ladder and say, "It's not fair they have so much money," then look down the ladder and say, "Eh, money's not all that important, look at Tampa Bay."
One or the other, please.
Because Pete Kozma. 40 million buys you a sac fly last night if I can be optimistic.
I don't think it's a huge difference. Most of the Yankees over inflated budget is locked into like 3 or 4 guys, and none of them are worth it now. Any Boston fan that bitches that the yankees spend too much money is out of touch, or really old. Before the current owners, Boston was pretty cheap when it came to spending on talent.
Again, Idk why you pick me out, I've never complained about how much the yankees spend. As a matter of fact I hope they spend more because it's been doing wonders for them!
I'm making sure everyone is consistent. Many people do indeed complain about the Yankees money, including at least two people in this very thread with Red Sox avatars. All I ask is that people be consistent. After that, I'm fine. If you think money doesn't matter all that much, fine; the Red Sox probably shouldn't frame the rivalry as a David-v-Goliath match up, then, as they have done recently and in the past. By contrast, if you do think money matters, that's also fine; but in that case, you'll also have to agree that the Red Sox have an enormous advantage over virtually every other club in the big leagues except the Yankees.
Either position is consistent. It doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the arguments, but at least they aren''t hypocritical. It sounds like you choose the former position, and that's fine. Other Red Sox fans appear to have chosen the latter in this very thread.
Either position is consistent. It doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the arguments, but at least they aren''t hypocritical. It sounds like you choose the former position, and that's fine. Other Red Sox fans appear to have chosen the latter in this very thread.
Little Green Yoda
Member
I'm not going to get into how much any billionaire should be investing into their sports team. I'm just saying that 40M is a lot of money that can buy some pretty damn good baseball players in free agency. Saying it's an insignificant difference is laughable whether you want to talk about 40M above the Cards payroll or 40M below the Cards payroll.
Simply assuming a team will spend a hypothetical extra 40M dollars poorly by investing in old players past their prime is kinda skewing the argument of whether or not 40M is a meaningful about of money in your favor. Yeah, stupid front offices can blow through a ton of cash and still fail to field a contending team.
RumblingRosco
Member
Enzy, as I said recently, is that crazy old uncle that gets drunk and tells stories about how hard life was for him growing up without tires or running water. He's a great guy and we all love him, but he gets cranky really easily. Don't let him bait you!
I expect tonight to be an RBI-fest. Both starting pitchers generally suck. Bullpens are a bit tired. Yeah, recipe for some shit to go down.
I'm of the position that money matters but is not overwhelmingly significant. You could probably look at a list of playoff teams over the last two decades and see what their average payroll is; my guess is that the average (and median) payroll would be quite high. Which suggests that deficits can be overcome, but those with money start with a notable advantage.
I'm going to go do that right now, as best I can.
If Stl wins again tonight, I'm going to need a hug.
The Red Sox are a good team with a great history and very dedicated fans. I really enjoyed going to Fenway, much more so than Yankee stadium, which had no character and where the fans were explicitly mean. I was physically threatened at a Yankees game.
Found something to help you along.
http://mlb.si.com/2013/10/07/mlb-playoff-teams-payroll-rays-athletics-indians-pirates/
Damn, that's crazy but not surpassing for Yankee fans. I've been to Fenway once also, sat in the outfield by the bullpen. They sure were tiny people in 1912, and liked to sit at a angle lol.
So yes, looks like:
1) Money does and has mattered for a team's chances of reaching the postseason
2) However, the value of money has decreased over the last decade in baseball. If present trends continue, the value of money may be non-existent within another decade.
In addition at Yankee stadium, another fan heckled Carl Everett, who was a Sox outfielder at the time. I don't like heckling generally, but in this case, it was even worse: apparently Everett's mother had died recently and the fan was harrassing him out about it. "What's a matter Everett, did you Mom die this week? You gonna cry?"
Charming.
I guess Victorino should have worried.
It's not laughable. It would certainly be if the team had limits, which this example doesn't.
wut. no no nononoononoonono. Fucking hell Farrell, he's 5/40.
Little Green Yoda
Member
Well, the catch is that the teams that are the highest spenders need to invest in free agents to leverage their financial advantage over the rest of the competition. But most baseball fans should probably know by now that free agents are usually bad investments because the most players who reach free agency are older and are near the end of their prime. Paying for past performance and all that. So those teams are going to have "dead" money invested in players that get injured or don't live up to their contracts.
But a perennial contender will always need to dip its toe into free agency from time to time because draft and development is still an inexact science. Every team has its share of holes on their rosters and free agency is great for this purpose. It's just a matter of identifying the best free agents to invest in.
Little Green Yoda
Member
There's no hard limit, no. But I accept the reality that the billionaires owning the teams are business people trying to make money off their franchises and aren't going to spend an infinite amount of money to win.
Syphon Filter
Member
I'm ready for tonight ; )
RumblingRosco
Member
Victorino has a back injury or something? Caught a word of it on the radio just now. Also, I'm at work, fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck. Won't be able to leave for another hour or so and thus no baseball for a bit for me.
Maybe because Lester is not in the same league as Johnson and Schilling?
Every team used to use 3 man rotations then they kinda backed off from it.
Similar threads
- Poll