Once Again Pitching Rules

[baseball7897]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

[VanceJergins]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

Yes, quite well....better than any team in any sport. It worked every year, from what -1996-2000? Something like that. So yes, I'd take their formula if possible.

[baseball7897]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

Yes, quite well....better than any team in any sport. It worked every year, from what -1996-2000? Something like that. So yes, I'd take their formula if possible.

 

From 1996-2000 the Yankees had some good pitching staffs. They didnt have the mindset of, "hope for the best with the pitching." Over the years, they have had the mindset of trying to win a world series with buying everyone. Has that worked?

[TruffleShuffle]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching.

[baseball7897]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching.

 

They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory.

[sethuel1]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching.

 

They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory.

 

Which means that you need to get lucky.

[TruffleShuffle]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching.

 

They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory.

 

What are you suggesting? The Tigers had great pitching and lost the WS. The 2nd and 3rd best pitching staffs (SD and Minnesota) got knocked out in the first round of the playoffs. The 4th and 5th best didn't make the playoffs.

 

So, do the Cubs go out and try to build one of the best pitching staffs in baseball? Or do they just try to get an average pitching staff that somehow knows how to "step up when it matters the most"?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

The Braves used the pitching model and how many World Series did they win with Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz?

 

The fact is, there are many ways to get to the post season. The best is probably trying for balance. However, a team can win with a dominant pitching staff and mediocre hitting. A team can also win with a dominant offense and mediocre pitching. Once in the postseason, there is no formula since the things that often determine post season winners-timely hitting, a lucky break, a surprising performance by a pitcher- are not predictive. There's no way to acquire these players.

 

Media, baseball historians, and analysts love to glorify cliches. It's not good copy to say the playoffs are a crapshoot because it's in the interests of baseball and all sports to be able to claim the champion is the best team. That's not really true in all cases, but no one wants to hear it.

 

But in truth, you build the best team for the regular season. Since good hitters will mash mediocre to poor pitchers and many of the 4-5 starters are just that, having two good pitchers and three average pitchers along with a great offense is likely the best way to insure regular season success.

 

There are other methods as well...but pursuing pitching at the expense of offense is no more a better route than pursuing hitting at the expense of pitching.

 

The Yankees are proof you can make the post season with a lackluster pitching staff.

 

The Tigers are proof you can make it with a lack luster offense.

 

The Cardinals are proof you can make it if you are lucky enough that the rest of your division sucks.

 

Neither of these methods are guarantees of victory within the postseason, no matter how many pundits and historians want to glorify it by saying so.

[baseball7897]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching.

 

They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory.

 

What are you suggesting? The Tigers had great pitching and lost the WS. The 2nd and 3rd best pitching staffs (SD and Minnesota) got knocked out in the first round of the playoffs. The 4th and 5th best didn't make the playoffs.

 

So, do the Cubs go out and try to build one of the best pitching staffs in baseball? Or do they just try to get an average pitching staff that somehow knows how to "step up when it matters the most"?

 

I would go out and build one of the best pitching staffs in the league. Cubs already have some pieces in place for the lineup. Lee, Ramirez, Barrett, and Murton all could hit .300 next year.

[Sammy Sofa]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching.

 

They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory.

 

What are you suggesting? The Tigers had great pitching and lost the WS. The 2nd and 3rd best pitching staffs (SD and Minnesota) got knocked out in the first round of the playoffs. The 4th and 5th best didn't make the playoffs.

 

So, do the Cubs go out and try to build one of the best pitching staffs in baseball? Or do they just try to get an average pitching staff that somehow knows how to "step up when it matters the most"?

 

I would go out and build one of the best pitching staffs in the league. Cubs already have some pieces in place for the lineup. Lee, Ramirez, Barrett, and Murton all could hit .300 next year.

 

As some of the posters have pointed out, focusing almost all of the offseason attention and resources on "great pitching" doesn't mean anything. As it was said, look at the Braves in the 90's...some of the greatest pitching ever together on one team, and what do they muster? 1 WS win. You need a rough balance between pitching and offense to win...you need to bolster both with the idea that during a short stretch like a playoff run parts of either could run cold. Focusing mostly on pitching OR hitting is not the answer, period. The 4 players you listed are not enough to carry a team offensively for an entire year, even if you have the best pitching in the league. You'd need at least 2 more impact bats to shore up the hitting, and that takes money...money that can't be used mostly for pitching.

[abuck1220]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching.

 

They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory.

 

oh. my.

 

so when you say "pitching comes first," you're saying that teams need to focus on geting pitching that "steps up when it matters the most."

[VanceJergins]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching.

 

They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory.

 

oh. my.

 

so when you say "pitching comes first," you're saying that teams need to focus on geting pitching that "steps up when it matters the most."

 

I've figured out that his argument is basically the same as saying "whoever has the most runs wins". Because of course whoever wins a game has the best pitching that game, and whoever wins a series has the best pitching that series. Yes, the Cardinals won the series, therefore, they had the best pitching that series....but this world series was not and example of good pitching beating good hitting.

[b_wiggy_66]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching.

 

They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory.

 

oh. my.

 

so when you say "pitching comes first," you're saying that teams need to focus on geting pitching that "steps up when it matters the most."

 

I've figured out that his argument is basically the same as saying "whoever has the most runs wins". Because of course whoever wins a game has the best pitching that game, and whoever wins a series has the best pitching that series. Yes, the Cardinals won th....but this world series was not and example of good pitching beating good hitting.

 

How can you say that, the team that pitched better won the series. Nuff said.

[VanceJergins]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching.

 

They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory.

 

oh. my.

 

so when you say "pitching comes first," you're saying that teams need to focus on geting pitching that "steps up when it matters the most."

 

I've figured out that his argument is basically the same as saying "whoever has the most runs wins". Because of course whoever wins a game has the best pitching that game, and whoever wins a series has the best pitching that series. Yes, the Cardinals won th....but this world series was not and example of good pitching beating good hitting.

 

How can you say that, the team that pitched better won the series. Nuff said.

 

Well my good man, I do believe thats exactly what my whole post was about. Please read the whole thing....maybe a few times. I pointed out that saying "the team that pitched the best won" is just like saying "the team that scored the most runs won".

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching.

 

They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory.

 

oh. my.

 

so when you say "pitching comes first," you're saying that teams need to focus on geting pitching that "steps up when it matters the most."

 

I've figured out that his argument is basically the same as saying "whoever has the most runs wins". Because of course whoever wins a game has the best pitching that game, and whoever wins a series has the best pitching that series. Yes, the Cardinals won th....but this world series was not and example of good pitching beating good hitting.

 

How can you say that, the team that pitched better won the series. Nuff said.

 

The team that pitched better over those seven games won. I think if you look at the stats, you'll see that Detroit's pitchers performed better over the course of the season.

 

Choose which of these four man rotations would you want to trust your team with.

 

ERA+ for each member.

 

Rotation #1: 111, 118, 118, 124

 

OR

 

Rotation #2: 143, 107, 87, 85

[sherwood921]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching.

 

They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory.

 

oh. my.

 

so when you say "pitching comes first," you're saying that teams need to focus on geting pitching that "steps up when it matters the most."

 

I've figured out that his argument is basically the same as saying "whoever has the most runs wins". Because of course whoever wins a game has the best pitching that game, and whoever wins a series has the best pitching that series. Yes, the Cardinals won th....but this world series was not and example of good pitching beating good hitting.

 

How can you say that, the team that pitched better won the series. Nuff said.

 

Wrong. The team that hit better won the series.

[Outshined_One]

How can you say that, the team that pitched better won the series. Nuff said.

 

So we return to the original point:

 

HOW IN THE HELL DO YOU PREDICT THAT?!

[soccer10k]

My point about both is that the playoffs are a crapshoot. Build a team to get to the playoffs and hope that your pitchers perform over the short series and that your hitters come through when needed.

 

So, to say the Yankees lost because their pitching was suspect is wrong. The Yankees lost because in a short series, the other team outperformed them. But the Yankees offense still was good enough to get them the best record, even with suspect pitching.

 

The Cardinals did not win because they had better pitching. They won because over a short series, they played better.

 

Trying to say look at what happened this postseason and then trying to emulate that model is a recipe for disaster.

 

So, looking at this World Series and then saying the Cubs should focus on pitching first is not necessarily the best idea. We could just as easily say the method is to get there, so let's follow the Yankees model, build a superstar line-up and hope for the best with the pitching.

 

And has that model worked? I really don't see a point in following a model that hasnt worked.

 

You dont need a superstar line-up to win. You also dont need to have a $200 million payroll to win either. Pitching comes first, then you go out and get your hitting.

 

The. Cardinals. Didn't. Have. Great. Pitching.

 

They didnt have great pitching, but their pitching stepped up when it matter the most. Which, in the end, gave them a World Series victory.

 

Are you that dense man? Honestly. HOW ON EARTH DO YOU KNOW WHICH PITCHERS ARE GOING TO STEP UP IN THE POSTSEASON?!?!?!

 

YOU DON'T!!! GET IT?

 

It's not very hard to comprehend. It's a crapshoot. If you can honestly tell me that you thought Jeff Weaver would win 3 games in the 2006 postseason you shouldn't be posting here. You should be in Vegas cashing in on millions because predicting things like that is a talent.

 

I would give you more stats and examples but frankly, I'm hammered right now and it isn't worth my time because if you don't understand at this point, even beating you over the head with a blunt object wouldn't get the job done.

[RynoRules]

OK, take it easy everyone. This isn't that big a deal.

 

If you don't believe the Cards were lucky, consider the fact that they got into the playoffs with 83 wins, a lineup with a ton of injuries (Pujols, Edmonds, etc.) and a staff that relied heavily on cast-offs (eg, Weaver) and short-timers (Wainwright and Reyes). Moreover, near as I can tell, the Cards we not responsible for all of those throwing errors.

[Pinktermite]

I don't quite get what all the arguing is about here. It seems to me that the Cards won this because of a little timely hitting, some unexpected pitching, and a little luck cashing in on some poor fielding by the Tigers. In no way can there be any formula to this. This year was anomalous.

 

Clearly the Braves had some great pitching over the years and yes that only netted them 1 WS win, but that's one more than the Cubs had over that stretch. So logic tells me that dominating pitching and great defense sets you up for the best chance to win. And I'll take the Braves formula over the Yankees formula any day.

 

But mostly it's luck and injuries (or lack of) and someone stepping up that hasn't stepped up before. In the end, trying to figure out how to win is a little like poking a bowling ball with a plastic fork, it's almost an exercise in rediculousness.

[CaliforniaRaisin]

Everyone take a step back, please.

[BigbadB]

There are plenty of differing theories out there as to what would constitute the best plan of action to build a World Series Champion, and 30 some odd teams are all attempting to execute their plan. It's a crapshoot as to what will win it each year. The best team in baseball does not always win the World Series. The best team does usually end up with the best record in baseball, however. And building the best team in baseball is probably the best plan of action I can think of.

 

Building the best team in baseball does not place focus on pitching only or hitting only or defense only.

 

It takes focus on all 3. If Kerry Wood and Mark Prior were completely healthy in 2006 and pitching like they did in 2003, this Cubs team most likely still would not have made the playoffs. The offense was horrible.

 

Much more emphasis must be put on the value of a walk. The Cubs were far and away dead last in drawing walks (395). They had an embarrassing low number of drawn walks this year. I had to dig back to 1998 to find a team with less walks in the regular season in the NL than the Cubs had in 2006. Coincidentally, the Pittsburgh Pirates and their 393 finished in 2nd the last in runs scored. Every team in the 1995 strike shortened season (144 games) outwalked the 2006 Cubs by a significant margin.

 

Drawing walks puts runners on base to be driven in.

 

On the pitching side, giving up walks needs to be addressed as well. The Cubs gave up 687 walks, far and away the most walks allowed on the season. The last team to give up that many walks in a season? The Rockies in 1999. They gave up over 1000 runs that year. It's not a coincidence that if you walk a lot of players, a lot of runs will score.

 

Target the best players available to fill the needs of the team. The teams with the lesser holes as a whole will be the team that has the best chance of finishing higher in the standings at the end of the season.

[UK1679666180]

I don't quite get what all the arguing is about here. It seems to me that the Cards won this because of a little timely hitting, some unexpected pitching, and a little luck cashing in on some poor fielding by the Tigers. In no way can there be any formula to this. This year was anomalous.

 

 

You're failing to account for the poor approach Detroit had at the plate. What type of adjustment did Monroe make after STL didn't throw him a FB early in the count to get ahead? Why did STL go from a 85% FB team vs. the Mets to probably about 70% with Detroit (STL throws more 2 seamers than most teams)? The Detroit hitters were sitting red even with two strikes, they did not show the ability to hit avg, breaking pitches (Carp and Wainwright had the two above avg, breaking pitches).

[Pinktermite]

I wonder how often the "best" team in baseball (the team with the best record) wins it all?

 

And the timely pitching disregards the Tigers poor approach at the plate...it was still timely pitching.

 

You can't have too many pitchers. I'd take just one more hitter plus a healthy DLee...and stock stock stock up on pitching, because pitching dominates in the short playoffs...

 

Get pitching...and we will be closer. And maybe one of these overwhelmed AA pitchers we used last year will learn from his mistakes and start putting the ball over the plate.

 

I would heavily weight our acquisitions in the pitching department and stay the hell away from Soriano...for the money we'd have to pay him.

[UK1679666180]

Timely pitch doesn't disregard the Tigers approach, Detroit put themselves in a difficult position to score regardless of whom was pitching as long as the Cards knew what was Detroit was gearing up for.

 

Hitting is based on looking for something, then being to able to react when it doesn't arrive. Detroit didn't react well to the unusual amount of breaking pitches and didn't adjust.

 

Best records go out the window in a short series, the Cubs have outplayed STL the last two year in head to games but hasn't been close overall as far as talent and the ability to play the game.

 

The Cubs won't score enough runs with only a healthy Lee. Define one more hitter? If Soriano isn't that, than what is? The Cubs would not score enough runs to win, there isn't enough pitching out there to help if they don't improve on offense.

 

Balance is the key. Cubs need just as much improvement on offense as they do on defense. The Cubs have 4 dead spots in their order right now (CF, 2B, SS, P) with a bad bench. They have 2-3 dead spots in the rotation as well and maybe 1 in the pen.

 

They have to improve each of them.