Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
You Gotta Believe.
I want to believe. But I won't, because I think a Tigers-Cardinals Serious would be more interesting. Go Cardinals.
You Gotta Believe: I'd rather suffer poison ivy in my lungs than watch Weaver & Rogers win another playoff game.
Is this normal October behavior?
Speaking of the Mets, I wouldn't write them off yet, as Carpenter pitches worse on the road than at home. Shea is a pitcher's park though . . .
Maine is the wild card. Can he throw strikes? Can he get ahead on the Cards hitters? Can he keep the ball out of Albert's wheel house?
I think the Mets will win tonight, probably in a slugfest -- which is exactly what I thought the Yanks would do against Rogers. grrrrr.
now that you mention a-rod...
how about the latest trade rumors? should he be moved? what is his deal? do you think he plays tetris? i wonder if he likes coffee... did you know that he has yet to produce a single run from the left side of the plate since joining the yankees?
(sorry. i couldn't resist.)
However, I'm finally getting a little nervous.
I'm considering a "game 6 is inconsequential if we lose, so I will only watch a game 7" strategy for my sanity.
If the Mets lose to the Cards, which NY team has delivered the most dissapointing performance of the 2006 postseason? Or, in other words, which team choked more?
I submit that the Mets have since, much like 2002, the Yanks cam out on the short end against the eventual World Champions, where as the Mets clearly should beat the Cards.
Also, if it's a Detroit-St. Louis World Series, I think we're about the witness the third straight WS sweep.
Even if they get past the Cards, I hope Detroit sweeps them into oblivion.
On the Mets side:
1) The Mets swept a series.
2) The Mets are playing competitive games.
3) The Mets lost Pedro Martinez and El Duque just before the postseason.
PS - I don't think the Yanks "choked."
On the Yanks side:
1) The Tigers won 95 games and the Cards won 83.
14 I think the Tigers are a lot better than the Cards or Mets, but a sweep is always a long shot, always. I'll say 4-2 Tiggers over Whoever.
I have no animosity toward the Mets or their fans, probably because I don't live in New York so I don't encounter the fans. And I do have fond memories of 1969 (very youthful memories, I hasten to add!). So LET'S GO METS!
If one looks at 3rd order Pythagenport records, the Yanks (97-65) were better than the Tigers (92-70) . . . but the Mets (89-73) were still significantly better than the Cards (76-85!).
FYI, BP has the Mets' chances of winning 2 in a row at 43.16, and the Cards' chances of winning 1 of the next 2 at 56.84.
Let's not and say we did.
The question was which team had a more dissapointing perfromance. The Yanks, by far. It's not close.
"If the Mets lose to the Cards, which NY team has delivered the most dissapointing performance of the 2006 postseason? Or, in other words, which team choked more?"
I'm surprised you think losing in a competitive NLCS is more disappointing than getting throttled in the ALDS. I'd much rather see my team win a series and play well rather than getting mushed.
And though I said it in 16, I'll reiterate. I don't think the Yanks choked. I don't think the Mets losing here would be a choke either.
The Mets haven't won a World Series in 20 years, we're just coming off 6.
I'm not trying to be a pain in the ass but you said: "If the Mets lose to the Cards, which NY team has delivered the most dissapointing performance of the 2006 postseason? Or, in other words, which team choked more?"
And then: "And though I said it in 16, I'll reiterate. I don't think the Yanks choked. I don't think the Mets losing here would be a choke either.
So, Mr. Amazin', which one is it?
I am all for a discussion about the Mets, but don't insult the Yankees here on this blog, or we will come out swinging, rightly and deservingly.
How does a reactionary, underinformed, mal-researched putz like that fool have a job?
It's not who you are in America, but who you know, I suppose.
Next he'll say that the Yankees made a mistake by not starting Carl Pavano in game 4!
Then of course he'd look like a genius and the 'prognosticator of all prognosticators' if El Duque limped out there and won game 7 to take the Mets to the Series.
Of course, him not even being on the roster is just delicious for those of us who already think Bayless is a total ass.
Not for Yankee fans. That said, GO METSIES!!!
evidently new technology is being utilized to determine pitch speeds, both as the pitch leaves the pitcher's hand and as it crosses the plate.
"One thing all fans should know is that the speed represented by this pitch tracking system has no reliance on radar guns. They are likely to gradually become a thing of the past in baseball. Remember when Tigers reliever Joel Zumaya was hitting 103 mph during that pivotal Game 2 of the American League Division Series at Yankee Stadium? Many people in the media were qualifying it as the possible result of a "slow gun," the term itself a dying relic of baseball conversation.
Zumaya's final three strikes thrown to Alex Rodriguez in the eighth inning of that game, according to the Enhanced Gameday showing speed at release and then speed crossing home plate, were as follows:
How did we know that? How did we know the speeds of Glavine's momentous pitch to Pujols here on Tuesday night? It's not about radar guns. It's about video at 30 frames per second, triangulation involving three ballpark cameras, and software on three computers in the corner of a TV truck outside the stadium's loading docks."
they're also tracking the distance the ball breaks, as you can see with MLB.com's enhanced gameday stuff.
pretty amazing when you think about it.
the article is at mlb.com. (i am not knowledgeable in the ways of linking. sorry.)
I've been half-heartedly watching this series, half-assedly rooting for the Mets, still feeling too sorry for my Yankees-lovin' soul to really care.
But a lunchtime walk around Times Square today, and the warm buzz of baseball in the air has made me see the light in Queens.
Here's what's on at Shea tonight:
Rookie Met versus Cy Cardinal.
Willie versus LaRussa.
The joyful Wright v. the joyless Rolen.
Delgado v. Pujols.
At almost every position, I prefer the Met to the Cardinal - by a lot.
The good-for-nuthin' Redboids have been dead to me since you-know-when, when they failed to stop, or even slow down you-know-who.
No, I'm not jumpin' on any blue and orange bandwagon, just hollerin' at it as it rolls by:
Let's go Willie! Let's go Mets! Beat these useless stiffs, would ya?!
More interesting prediction: what happens next year to both Yanks and Mets? I say Yanks win another division title with the same kind of deficient pitching (RJ, Wang, Hughes, and who knows what else), while the Mets crash and burn because they really don't have any starting pitching and everyone has finally learned how to pitch to their offense.
It's not insulting the Yanks to say they got mushed, which they did. It would be insulting to say they choked, which I think they didn't.
25 I took "disappointing" to mean in relation to the expectations we had of the teams due their status as "best team in the league with home field advantage" entering the playoffs. From that platform, despite injuries, albeit against weaker comp, the Mets have produced a better performance, ie more wins and better play, than the Yankees did.
Each fan base had a lot of reasons to expect a World Championship. I think the team that gets closer gives a less disappointing performance.
I hope the Mets win, though. I don't particularly want to root for the Tigers, but I definitely won't root for the Cards.
I wasn't surprised that the Tigers beat the Yanks, (we knew they had superior pitching going into the series) but in light of how the Yanks dominated the Tigers during the season, and how strong the Yanks lineup looked going into October, the ALDS defeat was crushing, especially Game 2 and 3 losses.
The Mets have gone further than I thought they'd get without Pedro and Duque.
Although Scott Spezio's dyed facial hair is one of the dumbest things I have seen in a long time, and Kenny Rogers is a dillbag, so lets go Mets, I guess.
But the question posed smacks of the big difference btwn Mets fans and Yankees fans. Both sides have their fair share of morons and antagonizers but only one fan base actually measures its team in relation to the other.
The linking of "disappointing" and "choking" in his post was not the best choice, but it was probably in haste and not meant to be taken as the crucial phrase of his query.
Either way, losing when you are rooting for the best team in the league is mightily disappointing.
I've always felt that if you're going to lose in the postseason, lose to the best team out there. Like 2002 and 2004, the Yanks lost to what is now looking like the cream of the postseason crop.
Look at it this way, come this offseason, the Yanks (and the fans) can atleast say that we lost to the best. If the Mets lose, then it'll be a postseason filled with "what ifs" and "what could have beens"...therefore, I'll argue that the Mets loss to St. Louis would be more of a ch -- er, dissapointment.
As for the more disappointing postseason loss, I'd have to go w/ the Yanks. It's tough to really say though since I have no emotion invested in the Mets. I know injuries are a part of the game but when you lose 2 of your top 3 starters plus your top bridge guy to the closer how could it not be a factor? The Yanks don't have any excuse for their lousy playoff performance.
The baseball back-pages will be all A-Rod rumors, analysis, and speculation all-the-time this winter -- including the day the Mets sign Zito.
Forget rings. Got shovels?
46 I just don't see any utility in the question and therefore wouldn't expend much energy in consideration of it. I'm emotionally invested in the Yankees, not the Mets. Therefore, I don't have any interest in comparing who had the "worse" loss. What I do know is that the Yanks 2006 postseason performance was very disappointing. I couldn't care less how it rated in comparison to the Mets (who haven't lost yet so let's not write them off). And if the Mets do lose, I would find no solace in the general consensus that it was "worse" than the Yanks.
If you think there's a meaningful benefit to posing the question, I'm open to persuasion but I just don't see it.
Gotta get back to work...
what happened to the '06 Subway Series which was widely predicted?
how did the two teams who shared the best record in baseball fail to get to the Series?
which fell harder?
You don't have to be emotionally invested in the Mets to respond.
Lets Go Mets! Unless they're playing our boys I'm willing to root for em especially while Willy's running the show.
Is there a game tonight? With the rainout and all, I've lost track. Did they cancel the travel day?
I'm inclined to agree with Celizic about the choke issue: Mets choked harder.
As big a shock as the Yankees' meek withdrawal from the competition was, the Mets' impending doom would be even bigger.
...As great as the Yankees' lineup was this year, the Mets were the team that we all said couldn't possibly lose before they got to the World Series. It wasn't that the Mets are a better team; they're not. But the Yankees were in the American League, where the competition is made of sterner stuff. The Mets were virtually an American League team playing without the designated hitter against a very ordinary cast of contenders.
54 MFD, I saw that too. I don't believe in curses but wow, IMO Buckner was clearly trying to say something by wearing that particular glove. Oops.
Wonder if McNamara would have sat Buckner if he'd known about the glove?
Excellent article. Here's a sample:
The frustrating beauty of baseball is that you can never trust what you're watching. Any hitter can have a 4-for-4 day if everything breaks right; you have to build a team that ignores the daily randomness and simply compiles the raw numbers that lead to bulk wins over the course of the season. General manager Billy Beane of the Oakland A's, innovator of the famously subversive "moneyball" method of building a roster, lamented that his approach "doesn't work in the playoffs." He was right, but not in the way most people understood him. It's not that his approach in particular didn't work; it's that nobody's does. It's almost entirely luck.
I think its logic may apply to all leagues taht are decided by playoffs. In most football (soccer) leagues, the team that has the most points is the winner and that is what's fair, but it takes away the excitment of the semi-finals or finals (no playoff atmosphere).
with playoffs and direct elimination games (like the NFL, champions league, world cup, etc), luck has a big part and some may view that as unfair or not the ideal outcome, but very exciting and money-raising games.
Wagner sure does make it interesting.
I would have been disappointed and a little sad had Wagner blown it, but watching that ninth inning wasn't agonizing the way it would have been if I were a real Mets fan.
I felt for the Mets fans, though, having to go through that.
Good game all around! Willie looks like the manager with the golden touch. The Anti-Torre. He went with his guys, went with the best pitcher not handedness, was willing to throw pitchers on 3 days rest (God forbid Joe Torre would ever in a million fucking years do that! Give Joe Kevin Brown and Jaret Wright and he's ready to fill out the lineup card). Piniella would have had Wang out there fo' sure. That doesn't mean anything would have been different, but we would have had our best guy out there if the ship had to go down, not 1500 miles away grinding chum on the dock.
The Mets do a good job in Shea, good music, loud music, semi-loud fans, and a great vibe in that dugout.
Go Willie, Go Mets! At least we can get a Championship in New York.
My prediction: The Mets clobber the hell out of Suppan tomorrow, outright clobber him.
"It was probably because of the W.B.C.," he said. "He did have a few small injuries for the first time in his life."
Mikeplugh, care to comment?
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.