October 07, 2006

I just can't believe that the Tigers are going to eliminate the Yanks. Say it ain't so Joe!

posted by texasred at 05:41 AM on October 07, 2006

I suspect the Yanks will put it back together and come back, but it does my heart some good, at least for the moment, to think of them as the 21st century Atlanta Braves -- they have not won the series since the last year of the 20th century, after all. They have enormous talent, they have and will continue to win a boatload of games, as well as easily winning their division every year, but they lack that essential blue collar ingredient (a Paul O'Neill or Andy Pettitte perhaps?) to win the whole shootin' match. Condolences to Twinkies fans.

posted by psmealey at 07:10 AM on October 07, 2006

If Liriano had been I healthy, I can't help but think the Twins would still be playing. I think the Tigers have the edge in the pitching battle today. Bonderman v Wright? I'd take Bonderman any day of the week. Of course, they aren't pitching to the same lineups. Wright also had a better September. So, we'll see what happens.

posted by apoch at 07:15 AM on October 07, 2006

Thank goodness that I saw that game with the sound turned down then. However, if you had a dime for everytime somebody in the bar laughingly yelled, "WTF was that?!" after every Rogers pitch, you'd have $398.30 right now.

posted by NoMich at 08:19 AM on October 07, 2006

Yankee managment needs to change their recipe for sucess.The fish stinks from the head down. The recipe was good enough for the division title and the first victory in this series. Maybe they just faced a pretty good pitcher on his game.

posted by justgary at 08:44 AM on October 07, 2006

Picture this: your team signs a pitcher with some fairly high expectations. After a pretty mediocre season on a winning team, he is routinely run out to pitch critical, series turning Game 4's and without fail he puts the opposition on a merry-go-round and your team in a big, very critical hole. Then, this same pitcher lands on a team for another post-season, a team for which you have some rooting interest, and he almost single-handedly takes the team out of the playoffs with just dismal performances, including walking in the series losing run. Then this same guy becomes the self-satisfied ace of a team that routinely has no pitching, and has accolades heaped on him for fabulous first-half performances that are long forgotten (like his team) by October. And then he punches a camera man, apparently unprovoked. THEN, the guy gets his cash cow, signs for $8 mil at age 41, goes to the post-season and pitches the game of his life against the same team he nearly buried with his putricity in the post-season 10 years earlier. Picture that this is your team. Forget that maybe you hate the team and $200 million dollars and yadda yadda. Man, I really just don't have anything good to say about Kenny Rogers today. I tip my cap with appreciation for the performance to Verlander, and will to Bonderman if he closes the door today, but Rogers gets nothing but my disgust and ire. His curve ball was awesome last night, and he had Jimmy-Key-like craft. There. I said something nice. That physically hurt. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of the surly jerk who opposed him last night, either. I was hoping they would both be bounced by the third inning and let some likeable players sort it out. Like Zumaya and Proctor. I love those guys. That would give Rogers and Johnson plenty of time to discuss the best way to take down a camera operator.)

posted by BullpenPro at 10:05 AM on October 07, 2006

Before we ascribe too much significance to a few playoff games and series, it's worth going back and noting that the playoffs are, essentially, a crapshoot. Are the Tigers a better team than the Yankees? Probably not. Can they be better over the course of four or five games? Absolutely. Look at the A's -- they win their first postseason series since 1992, something the superior 2000 and 2001 teams couldn't do. Or look at the Cardinals, who almost had the biggest collapse since the 1964 Phillies, but have taken a controlling lead against ther Padres. Is this the "real" Cardinals team finally showing up (as a number of commenters at the primary Cardinals blog I frequent suggest)? I think not -- the mediocre 83-78 team from the regular season is truer to the level of the ability and talent of this team. The difference over the past two games is that the relievers have made their pitches, whereas in the past (the second half generally and certainly the last two weeks of the regular season) they had not. That said, this Cardinals team may go as far or farther than the 100 win Cardinals team last year.

posted by holden at 10:11 AM on October 07, 2006

Again, its not the team with the best roster but the hungry team. Many experts state that this Yankee team has the greatest lineup in history.However the Yanks seem to be bloated and sluggish.A Rod in particular is showing his true colors,useless in the big game.Because of their heart Detroit may go all the way.

posted by sickleguy at 10:36 AM on October 07, 2006

Detroit better not pop the champagne just yet....

posted by firecop at 12:41 PM on October 07, 2006

Who said that the series was over? The haters. Of course, they'll have plenty of whiny reasons why they shouldn't eat even a taste of crow if the Yankees win...

posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:03 PM on October 07, 2006

!st inning, both starters looking tough. This may be won with 1 long ball. I'll take the Yanks in this scenario every day of the week. I may not check back in for a day or so if they lose though, there's going to be more bashing on here than i can handle.

posted by louisville_slugger at 03:45 PM on October 07, 2006

Hopefully A-Rod won't make it to the ALCS,or the whole Yankee team as a matter of fact. If in fact they don't make to the World Series,or to the ALCS, Steinbrenner will be on a rampage pulling every hair out of his head. A-Rod can't seem to play on the big stage. Too much pressure. He'll wilt under the heat Man, I'd love to be a fly on the wall in his office,or be in the locker room when,or I should say....IF.... that does happen. I'm hoping the Tigers finish them off today. Nothing could be sweeter than to see the supposedly best team in baseball lose in the first round. Especially me being a Red Sox fan living 30 miles from Boston. Go Tigers,put the Bronx Bombers out of their misery.....Detroit in 4? A-Rod wilts under the pressure of playing on the big stage. They all go to New York figuring it's a shoo in for a World Series Ring. .

posted by Ghastly1 at 04:57 PM on October 07, 2006

Nothing could be sweeter than to see the supposedly best team in baseball lose in the first round. Especially me being a Red Sox fan living 30 miles from Boston. Except maybe the red sox being in the playoffs? I mean, don't get me wrong, I want the yankees to lose, but it doesn't change the sox season. I don't get fans who seem to enjoy another teams failure more than their own success.

posted by justgary at 05:46 PM on October 07, 2006

Bonderman with a perfect game into the sixth is amazing against that lineup! He has not been the greatest for the last month.

posted by jojomfd1 at 06:25 PM on October 07, 2006

Look at those fans, look at that joy. That's great stuff. Go Tigers. Do it. Go all the way.

posted by jerseygirl at 06:32 PM on October 07, 2006

If Liriano had been I healthy, I can't help but think the Twins would still be playing. And I'm sure the Mets would like to have Pedro and El Duque pitching as well. You have to battle through the injuries (and have a manager who can manage a pitching staff like Willie Randolph) Congrats Tiger Fan!

posted by cjets at 06:46 PM on October 07, 2006

Hmmm. Surprisingly, I've found that the most effective way to remove your foot from your mouth is with a really, really big smile. Somehow, the September Tigers are gone and the April Tigers are here. All I can say is, "Welcome back, Boys!"

posted by ctal1999 at 07:04 PM on October 07, 2006

$200 million or so just doesn't buy what it used to, George! Just a coincidence I'm sure, but the last time the Yankees won the World Series was also the last year that they had a team payroll of less than $100 million.

posted by graymatters at 07:26 PM on October 07, 2006

$200 million just doesn't buy what it used to Man,how I agree with you. Big boy George goes out and buys his players,where teams like Detroit and others go out and get players ,and take a few years and build a team. How many more years is it going to take before ole George finally sees this? But George is to greedy and expects to win World Series every year. Not that every team doesn't want to win it all but George doesn't seem to get it. I don't really know what the Yankees have left in their farm system. But there comes a time when you've got to start building around a nucleas of younger players and a few crafty veterans. How much money is he going to spend next year on players that know George has lots of it and is willing to shell it out. Just keep doing what your doing George,and keep wondering why you have not won a World Series since the 90s. Or better yet, don't wake up. It'll just make it easier for all the other teams in the A.L. By the way,anyone out there know what the Tigers payroll was this year?....Just curious.

posted by Ghastly1 at 08:03 PM on October 07, 2006

Congratulations cc and Tigers fans everywhere! I will be waiting till next year with all of the other Red Sox fans but I am thoroughly enjoying this year.

posted by kyrilmitch_76 at 08:26 PM on October 07, 2006

Big boy George goes out and buys his players, where teams like Detroit and others go out and get players and take a few years and build a team. Free Agent signings by the Tigers (2006 salaries): Magglio Ordonez: $16,200,000 (highest on team) Ivan Rodriguez: $10,600,000 (second highest on team) Kenny Rodgers: $8,000,000 (third highest on team) Detroit players that made the 2006 All-Star team: Magglio Ordonez Ivan Rodriguez Kenny Rodgers So let's not say they just "built" the team. They used big money free agents as well. By the way,anyone out there know what the Tigers payroll was this year?....Just curious. Around $82,000,000, or 6th in the American League, and about $20,000,000 more than their next opponents, the Oakland A's.

posted by grum@work at 09:06 PM on October 07, 2006

It buys great players, but it cannot buy team chemistry. Team chemistry is based entirely on whether the team is winning or losing. If your team is winning, you'll hear many stories about how good the "chemistry" is, and how the players are "loose" and there are "mavericks" that "get in teammates' faces when needed". When the team is losing, you'll hear many stories about how bad the "clubhouse" is, and how the players are "unfocused" and there are "cancers" that "piss off their teammates".

posted by grum@work at 09:50 PM on October 07, 2006

Not entirely Grum- some teams can win, and not have the players get along. Last year, the Yankees were winning, and when Cano came in chemistry suddenly got much better, and wins resulted. I personally believe that wins are a result of team chemistry, not the other way around. Either way, im about to leave this thread for good, thinking about the Yankees is starting to piss me off.

posted by Kendall at 10:15 PM on October 07, 2006

Hey Grum, every team has players who make that kind of money you metioned that Mags, Pudge and the Gambler make...they are the veterans, they earned it. What you failed to mention is that there are 20 other guys on that team that came up from the farm or were aquisitions made by sound baseball minds. Let us not forget it takes a crafty gm to put the puzzle pieces together to develop a complete TEAM. I've watched this team all my life from the '84 wire to wire team, through the 119 lose debacle in '03, to today(surfing 'tween the baseball game and Michigan v MSU). It is ok to be burned that your team lost, but don't cry to the rest of us...cry to georgie about it..tell him to get an imagination and build a team the old fashioned way...without the check book.

posted by sydney2006 at 10:45 PM on October 07, 2006

I can't enjoy the Yankees' early exit, as stunned as I am by this result. They haven't won a World Series in a century, people. I'm beginning to think they're a more sympathetic high-payroll team than Boston.

posted by rcade at 11:02 PM on October 07, 2006

To grum@work Thank you for pointing that out to me their free agents did cost them 82,000,000 million to sign. I did know that Ivan Rodriquez, and Rogers wasn't cheap. But I had no idea Ordonez cost them that much money. But you got to admit, their payroll is a little cheaper than that of the Yankees. . My point was look who is going to the ALCS, and who's not. Now it doesn't matter to me who wins it. But I am still leaning towards the Tigers. And who ever said a new manager really doesn't matter. You can't compare Leland and Alan Trammel Quite a turn around from a 41 win season a few years back to where they have gotten this year The Red Sox could of had him but passed and got Francona. Still no comparison Leyland is the better of the 2 Evev though we(Red Sox) went on to beat the Yankees 4 straight.and eventually sweep the Cards to win it all. I like Detroit against Oakland, but I think Oakland will give them a harder time than the over priced, overrated Yanks did. Detroit in 6 anyone?

posted by Ghastly1 at 11:13 PM on October 07, 2006

it's worth going back and noting that the playoffs are, essentially, a crapshoot. The Yankees can buy the AL East every year for the next twenty years, but they can't buy a crapshoot like the playoffs Yes, baseball is more random than other sports, and the best raw talent doesn't always win, but some of you act as though we might as well roll dice instead of playing the games. You can build a team for the playoffs. You can build a team for a short series. Pitching becomes even more important, and the team that executes the best wins. That's not a crap shoot.

posted by justgary at 11:55 PM on October 07, 2006

Hey Grum, every team has players who make that kind of money you metioned that Mags, Pudge and the Gambler make...they are the veterans, they earned it. The following 2006 playoff teams had every single player on their roster earn less than Magglio Ordonez in 2006: Oakland A's Minnesota Twins San Diego Padres New York Mets Los Angeles Dodgers St. Louis Cardinals It is ok to be burned that your team lost, but don't cry to the rest of us...cry to georgie about it..tell him to get an imagination and build a team the old fashioned way...without the check book. I'm not a Yankee fan, I'm a Blue Jays fan. My favourite team spent less money than your "big-budget" Tigers, so I'm not that upset. I just didn't like the idea of the Tigers being touted as some "small-market" draft-and-play-only team.

posted by grum@work at 12:52 AM on October 08, 2006

Wake up George! Detroit only spent 82,612,866.00 to kick your butts.Heads should roll.Well done Detroit!

posted by buckner86 at 07:10 AM on October 08, 2006

I don't really know what the Yankees have left in their farm system. Arguably the best pitching prospect in baseball. You can build a team for the playoffs. You can build a team for a short series. Pitching becomes even more important, and the team that executes the best wins. That's not a crap shoot. That's true -- there are some things that correlate strongly with playoff success. I believe that Nate Silver over at Baseball Prospectus studied this and found that the three strongest factors for a team's playoff success are 1) power pitching, 2) an elite closer, and 3) good defense. You can certainly build a team around those traits. My point in saying that the playoffs are, essentially, a crapshoot is that the series are short enough that superior talent or even superior ability based on the three metrics above will not always win out in a short (5 or 7 game) series. (It turns out that the Tigers had a better aggregate score on those three factors than the Yankees, but Minnesota was much better than Oakland -- and it may be small consolation to those Toronto fans to know that their team had the best aggregate score on those metrics). And to win it all, a team has to win three such series. Of course that's not saying don't play the games. It's just saying let's not jump to conclusions about how some team can't get it done in the playoffs, or doesn't have the chemistry to win, or something like that (a fair bit of which seems to be going on in this thread) based on its performance over the course of a five or seven game series. There's a high degree of variability, randomness and luck involved.

posted by holden at 07:46 AM on October 08, 2006

I just didn't like the idea of the Tigers being touted as some "small-market" draft-and-play-only team. Agreed - however, next to the NY juggernaut, everyone's payroll is small. The Tigers can't recover from putting $62 million on the DL for three months. Also - Yankee fans should expect the Yankee hate. It's a small price to pay for 26 championships. Also - what do you expect?

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 10:34 AM on October 08, 2006

There's a high degree of variability, randomness and luck involved. It gets less and less random when it happens year after year, though.

posted by dfleming at 12:01 PM on October 08, 2006

But in determing who the best team is - even the best team built for the postseason, which is a bit different than the best team built for the long season - the playoffs will do that successfully about 15% of the time 15 percent? Do you have anything to back up that stat or did you just make it up? The team that is best built for the post season has the best chance to win the post season. Predicting the result is very difficult in baseball, but looking at the result it's not hard to understand why team A beats team B. Everyone predicted the yankees to beat the tigers. Looking at the series now, it's easy to see the yankees pitching wasn't good enough to beat the tigers. That's not random, and just because the yankee lineup blinded most people doesn't make the tiger win random. A roll of the dice brings up a 6 instead of a 4. That's not the same thing. Baseball is not random. There's just less difference in the top teams than the bottom than most sports. Again, that doesn't make it random.

posted by justgary at 06:37 PM on October 08, 2006

If Liriano had been I healthy, I can't help but think the Twins would still be playing. Someone else would still have had to win a game. It seemed as if the Twins used all their magic to catch the Tigers and had none left for the post-season. But this is coming from a Dodger fan whose favorite team is 1-14 in the playoffs since we last won the title.

posted by LA-4-Life at 08:58 PM on October 08, 2006

The Twins just Didnt have what it took to win the series. Everybody was worried about the pitching and it really wasnt the pitching that let them down. Johan did his job that day and So did Boof. Radke could have had a win if only had the offence broken through, The Twins are going to go far with the group they half. Too much has been made of Torii's missed line drive. Its how he plays the game. This team wont have too many change next year I am really looking forward.

posted by daddisamm at 01:15 PM on October 09, 2006

he just blew it. From the replays I saw, it was a pretty wicked "knuckler" off the end of the bat diving hard away from his dive. A tough chance at best, but if anyone can make that grab, it's Hunter. Sure wasn't in the Buckner category of "blowing it." Your Twinks displayed a lot of grit this year, you all.

posted by mjkredliner at 04:19 PM on October 09, 2006

But in determing who the best team is - even the best team built for the postseason, which is a bit different than the best team built for the long season - the playoffs will do that successfully about 15% of the time 15 percent? Do you have anything to back up that stat or did you just make it up? Uh, no, I didn't make it up. If each team in the playoffs had an equal chance to win the World Series, each team would have a 12.5% chance. Since some teams are better than others, teams that are better have a greater chance than 12.5%. There was an article detailing how random the playoffs are by Bill James in the 1989 Baseball Abstract (that book was not a James book, but he wrote the article). Obviously, with only 4 teams in the playoffs at that time, the odds were better - twice as high - for each team at each time. The team that is best built for the post season has the best chance to win the post season. Don't disagree. The best team in the postseason probably has about a 50% better chance to win the World Series than the worst team. Thus if the best team has a 15% chance, the worst team has a 10%. Predicting the result is very difficult in baseball, but looking at the result it's not hard to understand why team A beats team B. Well, of course it's easy to explain something after it happens, because by then you know what happened. If the Yankees had beaten the Tigers by scoring tons of runs, we would have been able to explain why that happened too. We can even explain why the Royals, the worst team in the majors, swept the Tigers the last weekend of the season to knock the Tigers out of first place. But that doesn't mean the results tell us anything about the merits of the two teams; the sample size of 3 or 5 or 7 games is simply too small for the difference in the teams' quality to play a significant role in who wins the series. Even the results of 162 games season have a lot of randomness in them; you'd have to play 1000 games to really determine the best team with a strong amount of accuracy. You can do the math itself; if you have one team that's of .600 quality, and another team that's of .570 quality, the .600 team will win a game between the two teams 53% of the time, a 3 game series 55% of the time, a 5 game series 56% of the time, and a 7 game series 57% of the time. When you get to really long, long series, the .600 team wil eventually win 99.9% of the time. (Obviously, this does not take into advantage outside factors such as home field advantage, the day's weather, etc. Note that I am not basing this on the team's season winning percentages, but on what the teams' winning percentages would be in an infinitely long season. ) See this article for a more mathematical explanation with some real numbers.

posted by spira at 02:07 PM on October 12, 2006