Week In Review: March 31 - April 6
by Jay
on Apr 7, 2008 10:22 AM EDT
in Week In Review
|
|
|
The series: Hosted the White Sox (win, win, loss) and visited the Athletics (loss, loss, win).
The news: Victor injured himself on the basepaths on Opening Day for the second straight year and was replaced in the lineup by Shoppach for the rest of the week, although he has pinch-hit. The Tigers, expected to compete in a tight division race with the Indians, opened the season with six straight losses, put new star Miguel Cabrera on the shelf, and got outscored 39-15. And in the biggest news of the week, manager Eric Wedge did not start Gutierrez on Sunday, sparking explosive bursts of existential angst as Indians fans everywhere try to make sense of a mysterious and inexplicable universe.
Post of the week: Now taking nominations.
Who fed it: Sizemore and Garko got off to superfine starts, posting near-identical lines right around .341/.442/.568. Carmona, Westbrook and Lee rattled off easy quality starts, collectively allowing just 3 ER over 21 IP. Perez blew a late-inning lead on his second batter of the new season but looked dominant in the next two games. Marte went 1-for-3. Absolute Best: Sizemore. Relative Best: Lee.
Who ate it: Sabathia tanked his first two starts – you might say he was 0-for-4 in quality start criteria – so that'll be the last time I write 800 words about whether he will or won't or should or shouldn't leave after 2008. Okay, probably not, but that's how it feels at the moment, anyway. Betancourt gave up seven hits in his first two innings, and he allowed more than one run in a game for the first time since September 2006. Dellichaels posted perhaps the worst week in the history of LF platoons, batting .050, which even a .20 walk rate can't redeem. Shoppach looked strangely uncomfortable behind the plate and allowed three passed balls. Finally, Gutierrez and Blake, after electrifying the faithful on Opening Day, combined for exactly one base hit, a single, in their next 28 at bats. Absolute Worst: Sabathia. Relative Worst: Blake.
UPDATE: JulioBernazard helpfully points out that Dellichaels' lone hit of the week actually came while Michaels was playing RF, not LF, and to make matters worse, Dellucci was technically a pinch-hitter when he was HBP. Taking these key facts into account, the LF platoon's production for the week was actually .000/.238/.000, and not .050/.269/.100 as previously implied. LGT-WIR deeply regrets this rare understatement. [Jay]
The other guys: We rocked Buerhle, Vazquez, MacDougal and Dotel but were baffled by Danks, Duchscherer and Eveland, three guys who collectively had 37 career starts coming into the week. Dye, Pierzynski, Bobby Crosby and Daric Barton all had big series; Thome hit two Opening Day home runs improbably off our lefty ace but forgot how to hit after that. Oakland had both Ryan Sweeney and Mike Sweeney in their lineup at one point, like some kind of very weird dream, Alan Embree and Keith Foulke in their bullpen.
False alarms:
- Royals and White Sox in first place.
- Tigers in last place.
- Sabathia and Betancourt being terrible.
- Shoppach fumbling.
Open questions:
- Pronk, or just Travis?
- New Jake or Good Old Jake?
- Why must C.C. be such a disappointment?
- Too soon for a Dellichaels death watch?
- Too soon for a Tigers 2008 season death watch?
- How healthy will Victor be this season?
- Can Cliff Lee really bounce back to be a pretty good pitcher?
- Can Carmona just continue being awesome without interruption?
3 recs |
129
comments
Read Related
EmailComments
Yesterday's win was very lucky. The tribe didn't hit the ball hard, and scored all their runs (2), on two bloop hits, 3 walks and a misplayed grounder. I'm the biggest Lee apologist, and I thought he was extremely lucky. He survived by commanding his fastball, which is something that is questionably duplicated. Not until the 5th and the 6th did he even get a batter to swing at a curve ball. Everyone keeps wanting Lee to throw more curve balls, but if the batters don't swing at them, and they are not strikes, they really don't work.
by oxforddave on Apr 7, 2008 11:33 AM EDT 0 recs
False alarms and open questions
Perhaps the Royals AND Whitesox in first place would qualify as a false alarm, but would it be that strange if one of the two challenged for the central title? And along those lines, the Tigers will almost certainly hit themselves out of the cellar, but with that pitching, yeah, absolutely, the deathwatch has started. High expectations come with enough pressure, but add a six loss start to the mix in a tough division, and you have the makings of an unusually early noose.
Between Sabathia and Betancourt, I'd put Betancourt further into the false alarm category. I mean, would you really be that surprised if C.C. had a very average year?
by William Gerard Nahorodny on Apr 7, 2008 11:41 AM EDT 0 recs
Re: your last question, no. The false alarm is for Sabathia being "terrible." It would not surprise me if he had some injury problems and an off-year in effectiveness, ending up "very average" to use your words. That said, given the volatility of relievers and Betancourt's injury history, could we not basically say the same for him?
Re: your first question, it depends how you want to define "challenging for the title." If you define it to include the 2004 Indians, 2003 Royals and 2001 Twins, then sure. I think the talent gap between the Indians and Tigers and the other three teams is 10-to-15-wins wide. If both the Indians and Tigers struggle such that no team wins 90 games, it's conceivable that one of the other three goes on a tear and takes the title, as the Diamondbacks did last year.
But with two contenders so loaded, and no real weakling team to pummel opportunistically, it seems fairly unlikely. The only thing making it likely is the fact that any of those three teams could be the one to do it, and the Tigers' hold on having a competitive team is just so tenuous in terms of lack of depth and health.
by Jay on
Apr 7, 2008 3:06 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The Michlucci death watch can't start soon enough.
I mean, not only are their bats a hinderance. I'm beginning to think their defense is a liability too (Dellucci's arm and Michaels judgement).
Lucci at least has shown patience at the plate, but he offers zero danger of any type of power. Michaels is the opposite as he is an aggressive hitter who can give you some pop. But if these guys can't collectively hit .270 with a +.300 OBP. What the fuck are they doing here?
by Toxicadam on Apr 7, 2008 11:57 AM EDT 0 recs
Juan Pierre?
An interesting idea for a trade. Granted there are obvious hurdles to work out, compensation, money thrown in to balance out his salary,etc but from a baseball point of view its an interesting idea. Around .300 avg and 50 or so stolen bases. There's worse things in the world.
At the very least it'd provide a lot of great debate about which statistics to value in a player.
by world dictator on
Apr 7, 2008 1:35 PM EDT
up
0 recs
We complain about Dellicheals hitting/fielding and then try to remedy that by trading for a player who makes more outs than any other hitter in baseball and has the throwing arm of a six year old?
I swear, next year is it.
by fwembt on
Apr 7, 2008 1:45 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Last year, Juan Pierre had an OPS+ of .685. And that's getting the benefit of an adjustment UP from his unadjusted OPS of .684.
Free Andy Marte!
by woodsmeister on
Apr 7, 2008 1:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Sorry - looked at the wrong site. His OPS was, indeed .685 (per THT), and per BRef, his OPS+ was 75.
Free Andy Marte!
by woodsmeister on
Apr 7, 2008 1:51 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I think looking outside to the Jason Bay's and Juan Pierre's of the world is the wrong answer. We have the answers within the organization, we just need the will to allow those guys to play.
Hopefully when Choo gets back to healthy (or BenFran keeps raking in AAA) , the FO will have that mindset.
by Toxicadam on
Apr 7, 2008 2:10 PM EDT
up
0 recs
If we have to get help, rather than take on salary, I'd just as soon we broke open a piggybank and got somebody good.
by fleerdon on
Apr 7, 2008 2:23 PM EDT
up
0 recs
You know who might fit that bill? Pat Burrell. He had two dingers today (bandbox alert), he's OPS'ing 1.476 (after putting up a .902 last year) for the year and he's in the walk year of his contract. On the downside, he's on the hook for 14 million this year and has a full no-trade clause, who knows if he'd waive it, I'd guess yes.
Anyway, what about Michaels, Laffey and Hodges for Burrell?
by NickFantana on
Apr 7, 2008 3:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Iron Nick, I had that same thought earlier. But I think Laffey and Hodges is too much to give up for a one year rental, even though Burrell is surprisingly sexy.
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.
by Gradyforpresident on
Apr 7, 2008 4:08 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Way too much to give up
Yeah I totally agree, way too much to give up AND pay 14 million for.
Laffey and Hodges are future starters with the Indians. I'm especially relecutant to give up Hodges give our rapidly increasing need for a 3B sometime in the near future.
Though i think a package similar to that might be possible. Sowers, Fransisco,etc or Sowers, Michaels,etc?
by world dictator on
Apr 7, 2008 4:55 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Pierre actually has his uses. It's just not useful for $9M per season, especially when Ethier and Kemp are the alternatives.
Still, he's among the best baserunners in the league. That doesn't show up in the stat line. Defensively, BP hates him, but Hardball Times thinks he stacks up A-OK compared to his contemporaries in CF. If the Indians had an opening in CF with absolutely nobody to fill in (I'm talking no Ben Fran, no Gutz) AND Pierre was only signed for another year or two, perhaps. But four years is a long time. Too long. Unless the Dodgers are eating $30M of the $36.5M he's still owed (they're not), I'll pass.
by xrickx on
Apr 7, 2008 2:50 PM EDT
up
0 recs
While Pierre may or may not be a great baserunner, he still needs to get onbase to show off that skill. His OBP numbers do not advocate that will happen now as he ages (he's now 30):
Year - AB - BB - AVG - OBP - OPS+
2001 - 617 - 41 - 327 - 378 - 89
2002 - 592 - 31 - 287 - 332 - 68
2003 - 668 - 55 - 305 - 361 - 94
2004 - 678 - 45 - 326 - 374 - 107
2005 - 656 - 41 - 276 - 326 - 84
2006 - 699 - 32 - 292 - 330 - 82
2007 - 668 - 33 - 293 - 331 - 75
I just can't see his walk rate improving where he'd be worth anything near his contract's worth.
Note, he has decent (not great) steal rates, but he has no power ... none. He might be ok as #2 hitter, but I doubt it.
by talonk on
Apr 7, 2008 3:17 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Tox, I gotta flag you on the profanity. Everyone just agreed to the Ground Rules a few days ago when you signed up for the new site -- no profanity. Our enforcement of this rule is very lax when it comes to spontaneous outbursts in the middle of Game Threads, but please make no mistake as to the overall policy.
The new platform is set up to delete all Reply-to comments whenever any Comment is deleted, so deleting this means deleting the whole branch, everything above this post. So #1, please observe the rules, and #2, everybody, I would advise you not to invest much time replying to Comments with profanity, because your comments are likely to get swept away.
by Jay on
Apr 7, 2008 4:21 PM EDT
up
0 recs
That doesn't make it unenforceable - it only makes you construe ambiguous language against the drafter. "No profanity" is hardly ambiguous - especially to an enlightened despot.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on
Apr 8, 2008 10:24 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Knowing that Kenny Rogers, Verlander and Bonderman basically have to throw complete games to have any chance of winning helps me sleep at night.
by gte619n on Apr 7, 2008 11:58 AM EDT 0 recs
Pronk, or just Travis? He looks like Travis to me. In fact he’s trending down from last August. The boy’s so tight you couldn’t drive a 18 guage needle up his ass with a sledge hammer.
New Jake or Good Old Jake? I’m assuming you mean the pitcher and not the ball park. I’m a believer in Westbrook. That sinker coupled with a change up is gonna make him dominate for the rest of the season. In fact I think he’ll be the best number three starter in baseball.
Why must C.C. be such a disappointment? Contrat jitters? I dunno. As I recall CC credited his great year last year to learning how to back off a little. Maybe he needs to relearn that lesson.
Too soon for a Dellichaels death watch? No. If either Marte, Barfield or Francisco start playing major league level baseball, it’s all over for these two.
Too soon for a Tigers 2008 season death watch? Yes, but given two more weeks of this and the White Sox may turn into our number one rival.
How healthy will Victor be this season? He’ll be fine, although hamstring strains are worrisome for catchers. We can plenty of other stuff to neurose over beside Vic.
Can Cliff Lee really bounce back to be a pretty good pitcher? I’ve been waiting for this to happen for over a year. I think that a number of things conspired to blunt Cliff’s performance last year, chief among them his injury and Cliff himself. Provided he’s listen to Willis I think that Cliff will be the best number 5 starter in baseball.
Can Carmona just continue being awesome without interruption? Depends. If the opposition takes the Red Sox play-off approach to Fausto he could cool off. That sinker is rarely a strike so if the batter’s lay-off of it, or at least make him elevate it, he could regress. If they don’t it’s Cy Young award, baby.
"the most vehement Yankee-hating guy I know" - Jay
by mauichuck on Apr 7, 2008 12:03 PM EDT 0 recs
as I recall, C.C. always stinks up the joint in OAK. I don't think an AL West club can sign him.
by JulioBernazard on
Apr 7, 2008 12:12 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I'm not dismissive of his hometown jitter problems, but I think they likely would go away if he pitched there regularly.
by Jay on
Apr 7, 2008 3:09 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Give me a break! Sabathia's been in the majors how long now? Could you possibly imagine uttering the words "hometown jitters" in reference to Josh Beckett? This goes bak to my point above. I'll even go a bit further and say that it wouldn't surprise me if C.C. has a "sort of lousy year." I just think that it wouldn't take much of a difference from last year for his ERA to end up close to five. I like him as a power pitcher, he has good movement on his breaking pitches and he's a lefty. But ultimately I just don't trust his control. That's why, despite Betancourt's increased workload, I see more downside for C.C. On the other hand, I see such great upside for Westbrook, Carmona, and even Lee (or his replacement) that I think the Indians could be successful if C.C. is average to kind of lousy.
by William Gerard Nahorodny on
Apr 7, 2008 5:18 PM EDT
up
0 recs
close to 5? wait, seriously? I mean, no, really, what?
Sizemore-Shapiro 2008. The Official Red Bull of Let's Go Tribe Game Threads.
by Gradyforpresident on
Apr 7, 2008 5:20 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I must concur with GFP - 5.00 ERA? What have you see nthat forbode such a thing. CC's highest ERA in a season was his first, 4.39 ERA. If anything, he might slide back to the low 4.00s to 4.50, but 5.00? Barring any sort of injury, he'll probably finish around 3.75-4.00 if he's mediocre and unlucky.
And how much updise are you seeing out of Carmona? His numbers can't get too much better than last year's unless you think he'll turn into Pedro Jr or early Dwight Gooden.
by talonk on
Apr 7, 2008 5:48 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Well, part of what I'm saying there is just that it's a very fine line between making pitches that will yield a 3-something ERA and a 4-something ERA. Throw in some bad luck, a slump, minor injury, whatever and there you go. I guess what I'm getting at is that I think he maxed out last year. Now he may maintain/achieve that level again, but things could easily go another way and make his ERA look a lot different. And does anyone see him becoming a MORE dominant pitcher than last year? It's not like he's adding MPH at this stage of his career so, even if we assume that he improves his mental approach, we are talking about control here are we not? (For the record, I only said "close to five," but I may have been exaggerating the point a bit.)
As for Carmona, I sort of was assuming some regression when considering his upside. I think we would all agree that, since Carmona is not yet fully established, that another outstanding or even very good year would represent "upside." While there isn't much potential for literal upside/improvement after what he accomplished last season, I nonetheless think his potential to improve at this stage of his career is greater than C.C.'s.
by William Gerard Nahorodny on
Apr 7, 2008 6:06 PM EDT
up
0 recs
"What have you see nthat forbode such a thing."
Other than last year's playoffs? Personal observation, that's all, not necessarily any stats to back that up. You could have said the same for Mark Buehrle going into 2006, BTW. And despite C.C.'s recent success, there's no denying that he's had more seasons with an ERA above 4.0 than below.
by William Gerard Nahorodny on
Apr 7, 2008 6:40 PM EDT
up
0 recs
While it is true CC has 4 seasons over 4.00 and 3 under, you fail to realize he has been an average to above average pitcher in every season so far with a couple phenomenal ones. Use ERA+, it is a much better stat to see how he compared to the league - 102, 100, 122, 106, 104, 140, 143. No seasons under 100.
That to me is trending up, not down.
As for his playoff starts, it very well could have been fatigue, or he was pressing. But I don't consider it the start of his downward spiral. I'll take his brilliance over the past 2.5 seasons as a better predictor if you don't mind ... for now.
If he comes out and tanks the next 3-4 starts, then we can start to get worried. That would be more of a pattern than 2 back to back starts (one of which one is in Oakland where he always gets hammered, trying to do well for his family and homies).
by talonk on
Apr 7, 2008 7:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I am not failing to realize anything. I would freely admit that he has been "average to above average" with "a couple phenomenal ones." And I cannot refute that he has been generally trending up, not down. I also don't think the playoff performance is the beginning of a downward spiral. I think he was tired, pressing, and perhaps, just perhaps not quite dominating enough to overcome those inevitable variables against a worthy adversary. I think he will come back to earth a bit this year and likely maintain generally above average numbers for several years after that.
Also, thank you for the stats lesson, but we were talking about ERA to begin with, so I just continued with that. I am sure there are MANY, MANY statistics which evaluate a pitcher's performance better than ERA.
So, you can take his brilliance over the past 2.5 years if you want. But I don't see him sustaining it.
by William Gerard Nahorodny on
Apr 8, 2008 1:08 AM EDT
up
0 recs
I get that "in your gut" you see C.C. as about to flop, but regardless of whether it's October or April, it's foolish to read too much into one or two starts – especially in trying to predict what's going to happen over a period of many months. Here's my own bold prediction for that: some good games, some bad games, some time on the DL.
But what you're predicting goes far beyond anything that can be suggested reasonably within the objective facts – PECOTA has him beating a 4.20 ERA with more than 75% confidence, and beating a 4.75 ERA with more than 90% confidence. That means your "close to five" is tantamount to predicting a fluke collapse just as severe as Hafner's 07 if not moreso. For those not employed as professional evaluators or major league trainers, the term for this kind of projection is "talking out of your ass."
As for your over/under 4.00 argument, what does that have to do with "close to 5" anyway? 4.00 has been solidly above-average for Sabathia's entire career in the AL.
While he may face some fatigue issues, let's get the baseline right before we jump to conclusions. Sabathia is a pitcher in his prime, still just 27, and he has a 3.28 ERA over 77 starts dating back to his 25th birthday, and his combined ERA for the last five seasons, 2003-2007, was 3.68. Barring injury, it would be a real surprise for his performance to exceed either of those bounds by much over the next few years.
by Jay on
Apr 7, 2008 8:17 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Well, first off, I never said I thought C.C. would flop. I just said it wouldn't surprise me if he had a somewhat disappointing year. Actually, I originally said that I would put Betancourt further into the false alarm category. Pretty benign really. If I had to make an actual prediction, it would be a lot more like yours. So, I'm not sure where the need for profanity comes in.
As for the over/under 4.00 argument, I was just using that to illustrate that C.C. is far from the type of dominant pitcher for whom a 4.50+ ERA would be exceptionally shocking. I mean, what did PECOTA say for Buehrle after 2005? And Buehrle didn't even get hometown jitters.
by William Gerard Nahorodny on
Apr 8, 2008 12:51 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Two more things: First, I admitted I didn't have stats to back it up. So that's somewhat akin to admitting that I am talking out of my ass (at least here on LGT). But, as you are well aware, I know things.
Also, I wasn't really basing my assessment of C.C. on his performance this season, although that doesn't seem to be hurting my case either.
by William Gerard Nahorodny on
Apr 8, 2008 12:57 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Yes, you know things, but the lyrics to "Red Barchetta" aren't that helpful in this case.
A 4.50 ERA from C.C. would be rather surprising, as was Buerhle's 4.99 in 2006.
Now then, tell me more about how Betancourt has less downside than Sabathia.
by Jay on
Apr 8, 2008 1:29 AM EDT
up
0 recs
Well, I guess I'll take full blame for last night. I AM concerned. But Betancourt always looks so solid to me -- his stuff so good and consistent. Part of this is that I perceive that he doesn't seem to miss his spots as badly as C.C. sometimes does.
by William Gerard Nahorodny on
Apr 8, 2008 12:32 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I'm not sure what Beckett has anything to do with the subject. I'm just saying, he generally hasn't pitched all that well in Oakland, and the likeliest explanations are that it's a fluke or it's related to being in his hometown -- because the last few years, it sure shouldn't have had much to do with their lineup. And whether it's a fluke or a jitters thing, it's likely iron itself out if he's pitching there more than once a year.
You may see more downside for Sabathia than for Betancourt, that's a matter of opinion I guess. But there's no getting around the fact that reliever performances are inherently far more volatile, and Betancourt's track record is the far more volatile of the two, and those two facts are probably connected.
by Jay on
Apr 7, 2008 8:01 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Somebody else correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't part of Fausto's problem in the ALCS a ridiculously small strike zone in at least one of those Boston games? Also! To be successful at waiting Fausto out, I think that the lineup not only has to have good hitters, but it has to have lots of them (i.e. Boston and Detroit). Even then, I still think Fausto can throw strikes that are pretty difficult to hit. Just ask Torii Hunter.....who has already started drinking for his hangover tonight.
by Nat on
Apr 7, 2008 12:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Yes, the strike zone was very tight. The FoxTracker showed several strikes that were called balls for Fausto. He is becoming an extremely scary pitcher. Imagine the media coverage he would be getting if he played in the Axis of Evil (NY-Boston)
Spidey
by Spidey on
Apr 7, 2008 12:23 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Was Michaels playing LF or RF when he got the lone hit for the platoon? Are we still waiting for a hit out of LF?
by JulioBernazard on Apr 7, 2008 12:07 PM EDT 0 recs
Haha very good point. He was in RF when he got the hit.
by supermarioelia on
Apr 7, 2008 12:29 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Jay, I don't know if you're planning on making this a recurring feature but I fully endorse it. This is great.
by NickFantana on Apr 7, 2008 12:12 PM EDT 0 recs
Thirded! Great summary and the talking points are fun.
Spidey
by Spidey on
Apr 7, 2008 12:19 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Thanks, guys. It does seem like a pretty functional format, so we'll see if I can keep it up.
by Jay on
Apr 7, 2008 3:25 PM EDT
up
0 recs
It seems like it might a somewhat transferable responsibility, like a good Game Recap. Only in the right hands of course. Although at this point, everyone's probably afraid of doing one because they feel like they have to top Andrew's season-opener. Which, incidentally, is my nominee for Post of the Week.
by NickFantana on
Apr 7, 2008 3:46 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Ignore my recommendation, I read the rest of the thread.
by NickFantana on
Apr 7, 2008 3:48 PM EDT
up
0 recs
....and I was just about to call you on that.
"It's hard to win when you don't score." Cliff Lee, 9/28/05.
by Harry Doyle on
Apr 7, 2008 3:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
My mood has not changed as in your summary. I was quite worried at the start of the season, and I continue to worry - I'm probably at 5.3. Heck, I have been nightmares about Tribe bullpen implosions (giving up 24 runs in an inning!) and the Yankees running away with the AL for several days.
Does anyone know if a team has ever turned itself around after an 0-6 start? Or, has a playoff team ever lost 6 games in a row at home during the regular season?
Spidey
by Spidey on Apr 7, 2008 12:29 PM EDT 0 recs
Jon Miller kept saying that the 1992 (?) Reds were the only team to do it.
But you shouldn't worry. Joe Morgan said that wins are overrated and that he doesn't buy into your crappy nerd statistics.
by gte619n on
Apr 7, 2008 12:32 PM EDT
up
0 recs
The 1974 Pirates and the 1995 Reds started 0-6 and won their divisions.
by SuddenSam on
Apr 7, 2008 1:20 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I think people are reading too much into the 0-6 start. Sure, it's good fun to think the Tigers suck, but if it happened at any other point in the season people would just write it off as a slump & not think too much of it. Then again, last year's longest losing streak for the Tigers was 5 games (longest for the Indians was 4), so maybe there IS something to it. Whatever, I know I'm going to keep enjoying watching them lose as long as it happens.
by zempf on
Apr 7, 2008 12:53 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Yep. We have a 3 game lead, that's it. On April 7.
by dgcambridge on
Apr 7, 2008 12:57 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Did anyone else feel a little dirty rooting for the White Sox last night?
by gte619n on
Apr 7, 2008 1:05 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Not as dirty as I'll feel cheering for the Red Sux tonight
Burn on, big river, burn on...
by Turkmenbashi on
Apr 7, 2008 2:05 PM EDT
up
0 recs
Uhh just who are they playing tonite? i only see a TB/NYY matchup tonite in the AL (besides us of course).
by talonk on
Apr 7, 2008 5:49 PM EDT
up
0 recs
never mind, you're thinking of the Det @ Bos series that starts tomorrow ...
by talonk on
Apr 7, 2008 6:00 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I agree that if it happened at any other point in the season people would just write it off as a slump -- which is exactly what it would be: just a slump. But the significance of this slump is precisely that it is happening at the start of the season. They haven't won a game yet either, so that makes it different from a mid season slide. It's a new, expensive team with high expectations. I think that's significant. Now, a win tomorrow would obviously change that a bit, but a win followed by two losses might kind of make them continue to feel more like losers than winners, wouldn't you agree?
by William Gerard Nahorodny on
Apr 7, 2008 5:31 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I agree that the beginning-of-the-season-is-no-different argument is getting overplayed here. I think a six-game slide mid-season by a contender would also get a lot of talk.
The issue with a season-starting slump is that this is their Plan A, nothing has really gone wrong yet – Inge has outproduced Granderson's usual numbers – and eventually, things will. Plan A is supposed to look better than this.
by Jay on
Apr 7, 2008 8:21 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I'm open to input as to the correct setting on the mood meter. I'm at 6.6, still fairly positive, because (1) a 3-3 start isn't anything to freak out about, (2) our biggest problems were guys I'm confident will do okay-to-great this season, Sabathia and Iron Rafael, and (3) we're three up on the Tigers. If the Tigers had gone 6-0, it would be hard for the mood meter to be higher than 4.0.
by Jay on
Apr 7, 2008 4:17 PM EDT
up
0 recs
I'm always skeptical of early season records especially a week in. I remember starting like 13-1 and then missing the playoffs miserably. Or even more hilarious players hitting 3 home runs in one week but ending with 14 all year.
Weird stuff happens during the first week of the season. And as we've seen, baseball is a marathon and not a sprint.
Of course if you're a Tigers fan you'd better hope this is true.
by world dictator on
Apr 7, 2008 5:00 PM EDT
up
0 recs