baseball7897

Thank you for the edit. I think it takes a hell of a lot of luck to win, because anything can happen. All you can do is try to build the best team possible to even get into the postseason. So you think it just takes luck? Luck does play a role, but not a significant role.

Based on your logic, the Angels, Astros, and Blue Jays should have all made the postseason since their pitching staffs gave up fewer runs this season than the Cardinals. If you go by team ERA, you can add the Marlins, Indians, Diamondbacks, Reds, and Pirates to that list. Also, based on your logic, San Diego should have beat St. Louis in the NLDS and then the Mets in the NLCS. Based on your logic, the Indians, Phillies, Whitesox, Red Sox, Atlanta, and Rangers should have all made the playoffs since their hitting was in the top 10 in all of baseball. Also, based on your logic, the Yankees should have beat the Tigers in the ALDS, and then the A's in the ALCS. How does my logic that "anything can happen in the postseason" lead to anything you just posted? I haven't argued that offense always beats pitching. Try actually reading the posts next time. Ok, mother.

So pitching always beats hitting, except when errors, mental mistakes, and a lack of clutch hitting prevent it from doing so. In other words, ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN IN THE POSTSEASON. I have always said good pitching with good defense is the way to win the world series. Not to mention clutch hitting. The funny thing is, I belive someone on this board said defense doesnt matter.

Based on your logic, the Angels, Astros, and Blue Jays should have all made the postseason since their pitching staffs gave up fewer runs this season than the Cardinals. If you go by team ERA, you can add the Marlins, Indians, Diamondbacks, Reds, and Pirates to that list. Also, based on your logic, San Diego should have beat St. Louis in the NLDS and then the Mets in the NLCS. Based on your logic, the Indians, Phillies, Whitesox, Red Sox, Atlanta, and Rangers should have all made the playoffs since their hitting was in the top 10 in all of baseball. Also, based on your logic, the Yankees should have beat the Tigers in the ALDS, and then the A's in the ALCS.

nope. good hitting beats good pitching. eckstein, molina, rolen, etc were just better than pudge, guillen and granderson. prove me wrong. It's pretty sad that you believe "good hitting beats good pitching". There really is no use arguing this if you already believe that. If you think "good hitting" is the way to win a world series, then why didnt the Whitesox win it this year? Why didnt they make the playoffs? Why didnt the Red Sox win it this year? Why didnt he Yankees win it this year? Plain and simple, they didnt have the pitching to get it done. if you think good pitching beats good hitting, then WHY THE HOLY HELL DID THE DETROIT FREAKING TIGERS, WHO HAD THE ABSOLUTE, WITHOUT A DOUBT, BESTEST IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD PITCHING WIN THE WORLD SERIES??????????????????????????????????????????? They played like crap in the world series. Errors, no clutch hitting, and mental mistakes are a few reasons why they didnt win the world series.

nope. good hitting beats good pitching. eckstein, molina, rolen, etc were just better than pudge, guillen and granderson. prove me wrong. It's pretty sad that you believe "good hitting beats good pitching". There really is no use arguing this if you already believe that. If you think "good hitting" is the way to win a world series, then why didnt the Whitesox win it this year? Why didnt they make the playoffs? Why didnt the Red Sox win it this year? Why didnt he Yankees win it this year? Plain and simple, they didnt have the pitching to get it done.

detroit's good pitching didn't shut down st. louis' good hitting. Well game 1 Verlander gave up 6 runs and they lost. Game 2 Rogers pitched good and they won. Game 3 they gave up 3 runs and Carp gave up 0 and the Cards won, game 4 they got some bad breaks gave up 3 runs and lost. And game 5 again bad breaks and gave up 2 runs and lost. So they pitched OK in the W.S., but the cards pitched better and guess what, the better pitching won. ugh...this is such after-the-fact analysis that i can't believe you don't see the flaw in your logic. let's take last night's game -- verlander vs. weaver. verlander is clearly the better pitcher, so going in you (using your pitching beats hitting philosophy) would say the tigers should win since they have the better pitcher. then weaver outpitches verlander and you say 'well, good pitching beats good hitting' and weaver pitched better than verlander. i don't see how anyone can subscribe to this idiotic 'good pitching beats good hitting' mantra and then cite the 2006 world series, in which the team with the team with the BEST PITCHING IN ALL OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL got beat by a team with the 16TH BEST PITCHING IN ALL OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL. It's true. Good pitching always shuts down good hitting. In the postseason, Weaver was better than Verlander.

Agreed.

That's getting really annoying. Well Frank finds you annoying. You would say something like that. Very childish response. It was a J-O-K-E. LOL

That's getting really annoying. Well Frank finds you annoying. You would say something like that. Very childish response.

That's getting really annoying.

This game tonight really shows why defense is important.

Not if they're smart they didn't. He should be a starter. Yeah, he should be a starter. I said he would win 15 games next year if he was a starter.

I think the Cardinals found themselves a closer.

http://espn-ak.starwave.com/i/mlb/profiles/players/65x90/6953.jpghttp://espn-ak.starwave.com/i/mlb/profiles/players/65x90/6559.jpghttp://espn-ak.starwave.com/i/mlb/profiles/players/65x90/6394.jpghttp://espn-ak.starwave.com/i/mlb/profiles/players/65x90/7578.jpg The 4 Horseman!!!

I've already admitted that the Cubs won't do it. Hendry lacks the creativity to even consider it. It's part of the reasons the Cubs constantly let options pass that would improve the team. But just because it won't happen doesn't make it fodder for discussion. We're not going to trade for Arod either, but there's lots of threads on it. In fact, we're more likely to bring back Alou than we are to get Arod. We're also not going to get Zito, but people bring him up all the time. I think the chances for signing Alou are as good as getting Zito. The Cubs are more likely to sign Alou than they are to be able to trade for John Lackey, but I've seen someone constantly bring up that idea for the past year as well. If we only talked about the limited moves our brain trust could actually pull off, we'd run out of things to talk about. Zito!!!!!! PLEASE HENDRY!!!!!!! http://thediamondangle.com/archive/july03/oakland/75a_big.jpg

Thank you.

LF. Alou and Thomas are great fastball hitters. They both could hit 30Hr next year. Thomas is signifigantly more patient at the plate, with more power. Also, I recall Alou being a much better breaking ball hitter. Alou has probably the quickest hands in the league. He could turn on a Zumaya fastball better than anyone.

I'll try to answer: No, there is no guarantee he won't get injured, but if he's platooning and PH, he's less likely to get injured, as Vance already said. One person thinks he'll cost a lot, but then thinks no one will want to offer him $7 million, so he won't cost that much. And please explain your third question. He doesnt deserve 7 million, but some GM will take the risk of signing him to that kind of deal. Who? Oakland. They had success with Big Hurt, I dont see why they wouldnt take another risk on a Big Hurt type player. Where would Alou fit in with Oakland? How is Alou anywhere near Thomas in ability? LF. Alou and Thomas are great fastball hitters. They both could hit 30Hr next year.

I'll try to answer: No, there is no guarantee he won't get injured, but if he's platooning and PH, he's less likely to get injured, as Vance already said. One person thinks he'll cost a lot, but then thinks no one will want to offer him $7 million, so he won't cost that much. And please explain your third question. He doesnt deserve 7 million, but some GM will take the risk of signing him to that kind of deal. Who? Oakland. They had success with Big Hurt. I dont see why they wouldnt take another risk on a Big Hurt type player.

I'll try to answer: No, there is no guarantee he won't get injured, but if he's platooning and PH, he's less likely to get injured, as Vance already said. One person thinks he'll cost a lot, but then thinks no one will want to offer him $7 million, so he won't cost that much. And please explain your third question. He doesnt deserve 7 million, but some GM will take the risk of signing him to that kind of deal.

If he's signed as the fourth outfielder, that's not as much of a problem. 7 million for a bench player is a problem. Vance said 4-5 million, not 7! I highly doubt Alou gets a deal less than 5 million. 5 million for a bench player is not a good idea either. Do you think Jones would be happy about a platoon role?

If Boras/Jones are going to want $20 mill, then Boras better advise his client to find another profession, cause he won't be playing baseball for that amount. And no, let's not focus on Vernon Wells, who is looking for Johnny Damon type contract (and yes, so is Torii Hunter) for his next contract. Let's focus on Felix Pie, or one of the lower tier CFers, like Roberts/Lofton/Crisp. Yeah, let's switch focus to the lower tier CFers. That's a great idea!!!!

are you referring to the batter or pitcher? K-Rod!!!!! http://rightwingnuthouse.com/images/r359555598.jpg

If he's signed as the fourth outfielder, that's not as much of a problem. He's still a guy that can put up a great average and still give you a decent amount of HR's a year. I'm sure a starting job will be open to him somewhere. You may be right. But then again, if we offered him more money to be the 4th OF than another team offered him to start, would he take the extra cash for the limited role. My guess is most NL teams will be worried about his age and durability in the field and won't pay him big bucks for that reason. So, it would have to be an AL team with an opening at DH that signs him. I can see Cleveland, Detroit, and Texas...maybe Minnesota. How large of a contract will those teams offer? I can see the Cubs topping what those teams will offer even if they are planning on using him in a more limited role. I really see the Astros most likely to try to get him. I dont see any of those teams signing Alou. Why would anyone in their right mind sign a injury prone 41yr old to a $7 million contract?