These are random:
I had reasons to not like any of the final 4 teams this postseason, but the Dodgers are and always will be enemy #1. I'm very relieved I don't have to deal with Dodger fans bragging about their dynasty all winter.
Astros have a heckuva young lineup. The pitching is a bit more iffy, but there will still be a lot of dynasty talk this offseason. The 'Stros will find out how crazy hard it is to repeat a WS championship. Biggest factor is the beating the pitching takes in that extra month of October. All those extra innings may well have shortened the careers of more than 1 Giants pitcher.
The pendulum may swing back at some point, but right now this is a game of home runs and the Giants are way, way off the pace.
NL pitchers, including the Giants, need to study how the Astros pitched to Cody Bellinger. He'll likely eventually make the readjustment, but it seems like the 'Stros found some holes.
Hate to say it, but there's more to the Dodgers than just spending money. Justin Turner now has a big contract, but they got him off the waiver wire. They got Chris Taylor in a low level trade. Multiple young players came up through the minor league system and were not necessarily first round draft picks.
After watching pitcher after pitcher on both sides run out of gas, you have to appreciate the way Bruce Bochy shepherded his pitching staffs through 3 postseason runs. Corollary: How great was the Giants "Core Four" bullpen anyway? Gonna be awfully tough to put another group like that together.
What are your postseason thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. Kershaw is no Bumgarner, but Darvish and his 21.6 ERA was beyond bad.
ReplyDelete2. The offensive aspects were vastly over-hyped. The teams scored 68 runs in 7 games. But that is skewed like crazy by the 13-to-12 game. The rest were your basic baseball games with an average of 7 runs a game. The Giants and Royals averaged 8 runs a game in 2014. Royals & Mets averaged 9 in 2015. The Indians & Cubs averaged nearly 8 runs in 2016. If that 13-12 would have been a more normal 8-7 or some such, it would been an 8 run/game WS which is perfectly normal.
3. The bullpen management was poor on both sides. I think both teams cost themselves games because of it. Makes you really appreciate the core four and Bochy's bullpen management.
4. The Dodgers lost. Ah, ha ha ha ha hahaahahahahahahahaaaa.........
5. In last nights game, 21 of 23 RISP never made it home. Both teams had their chances to put it way away or take it back and couldn't.
Part of the problem with both bullpens was the SP's weren't going deep into games. Whether that was managers having quick hooks or the pitchers just didn't execute, it ended up exhausting the bullpens.
DeleteI agree. There were a few too many quick-hooks. I think everyone wanted to do what the Indians did last year, LaRussa did with the Cardinals in 2011 or Bochy did with the Giants. But they didn't do it as well and it cost them.
DeleteIn LA's case, as I noted below, they were following saber rule that starters start getting hit 3rd time in lineup. In Houston's case, their pitchers just didn't have it.
DeleteThat's why I don't see either team necessarily being dynasties. To have dynasties, you need great pitching, both starters and bullpen, during the playoffs. Neither team's starters really came up big in the World Series except maybe Morton. All of them had the yips at some point, Darvish especially so, though at least Verlander was good enough, but only good enough to lose.
And the whole Astros bullpen totally imploded, Giles was great during the regular season, but he was crap during the playoffs, I see him as being Peavy-like, very good during season, not so good during playoffs. Without their starting pitchers as relievers, they would have lost. You can win series with that, but I don't see how any team can do that consistently when you can't trust any of your key 5-6 relievers to stop the scoring.
And I agree that there was some that were copy cats of Bochy's methods. I call it Bochy because I don't recall any manager before 2010 who would manage each playoff game as do or die, which is a huge reason I felt he was the one to finally do it for us during the 2010 season.
Thanks for the data on the scoring. I would also note that there were extra inning games, which add to scoring, really should look at runs scored per 9 innings average to level things out.I would also add that it was all the homers that added to the hype on offense, as everyone loves the dingers.
Isn't the SP not going deep part of a trend? For the Dodgers all year Roberts had a quick hook for everyone not named Kershaw. Dodgers used 6 relievers extensively (45-66 games), 4 of them having very good WHIPs. 10 pitchers started games. Although Jansen had his moments, mostly very good, that guy was something special all year.
ReplyDeleteThere was talk about shutting down the Astros completely in some games by both the Yankees and the Dodgers, but the trruth is the Dodgers were (almost) completely shut down, slashing .205/.290/.393 for the 7 games. Belinger, Puig, Seager, Taylor, Turner, Barnes, Hernandez, and Utley barely showed up.
This happily won't be The Winter of Our Discontent with a nod to John Steinbeck.
I did notice, this post season,the seemingly quick hook that most managers were using on their starting pitchers. Very odd. Not exactly compelling baseball, with the less than stellar pitching. But, am extremely happy that the Dodgers lost. Hopefully the Giants can right the ship in time for ST.
ReplyDeleteRight now I've got a giant web of thoughts on my mind. Let's see how well I can mesh them together...
ReplyDeleteThat was a fun series. I was surprised by how little drama there was in game 7. I'm obviously relieved the Astros prevailed, and doing it in LA was icing on the cake.
Both of those clubs are going to be "hanging around" the playoff scene for a while, it would seem. I do wonder how the Dodgers rotation holds up going forward, as Darvish is likely gone, and they really had a perfect storm scenario with Hill, Wood, Ryu, Maeda (all quite injury-prone) this season. I think that production will be very tough to duplicate.
It's interesting to me that the narrative today is completely centered on analytics. The Astros & Dodgers, two teams up to their eyes in analytics, conquered the rest of the league. Now we hear that the Giants need to "get more analytical." Look, I'm not saying number-crunching & data didn't help both franchises get to this point. Of course it did. And of course teams will continue to use data in their assessments of free agents, trades, defensive positioning, pitch-sequences, etc.... but this is a bit much for my taste. Couldn't it be that both teams (who used completely different methods to get to this point) are loaded with generational-type talent? Just look at those rosters!
The example I'll use is this idea of pulling your starter after the 2nd time through the order. Apparently that is now a "thing" in postseason baseball, as is using starters in relief, using closers before the 9th, using closers for multiple innings, etc... But I think we all remember Bruce Bochy doing that kind of thing back in 2010, and making other managers look clueless in the process. To me, that's called doing whatever it takes to win a postseason game, not "analytics."
Maybe my thinking is just too narrow for today's world, but I would still rather see credit go to the players & coaches than the guys crunching numbers in the office.
Cove Chatter
I read the June 30, 2014 Sports Illustrated cover story predicting the Astros would win the 2017 series.
DeleteThey are pretty clear that analytics is a tool, but not the only tool. And they contrast their approach with the perceived Moneyball method of pure analytics. (Where it was nerds vs. Scouts.) They quote an Astros scout as saying that under this new approach, the Astros didn't ask him to change anything about the way he'd been scouting for the past 25 years. It's simply that the decision makers weigh analytics into the decision.
Sorry, didn't read comment about starters, else I wouldn't have repeated in my comment below. But I would add that it's not a thing, it's analytics, that 3rd time through lineup is when pitchers get blown up.
DeleteAnd I think I'll rant here on that. First off, it's stupid robo-management. While I can see it's true that 3rd time through is generally when the wheels come off a starting pitcher, we all already saw that ourselves, that's roughly in the middle innings. Second, hooking the pitcher after 18-19 batters, like they did with Hill, is idiotic if he's dealing, each game is different, that's why you need coaches to make that judgement in the game. This reminds me totally of the stupid PAP 100 pitch rule, I would say that each pitcher has his own threshold, some start declining at 80 pitches, others can go 120 with no problems.
And that's where the Dodgers lost. When a pitcher loses it, analytics goes out the window, there is no protocol for handling that, and then it becomes, as Roberts said after the Darvish games, his "hope" that Darvish could get the guy out and end the inning. The coaches should be making the determination whether the pitcher still has it or is done, not hope he can get the batter out. That's the difference between the Astros and Dodgers, and how Bochy was different, you make the judgement who is doing it and who isn't, and who can handle it, that should be why you hired them to be your manager and coaches.
It also helps when you have a bullpen full of guys with ice in their veins too, like our Core Four. That was very rare, and a huge part of our 3 in 5. And I'm not sure we have guys like that now on our team, so we'll see.
About the Dodger's rotation, it has been five years of this now, and they have been winning the division each year, but this was the first to make the World Series, and that was because Darvish was the co-ace that they needed, until he wasn't, in the World Series. He pitches well and wins either game, they are champions instead.
DeleteSo they just seem to be repeating Billy Beane's saying that his "stuff" is not working in the playoffs. As I've been writing up on my blog, great pitching neutralizes great hitting most of the time (and you've been too with your Game Score work). The Dodgers rely a lot on their bullpen to give them 4-5 innings, and that just seems to wear them out. I would also note that they expect Jansen to suddenly throw 2 innings in the playoffs while rarely doing it during the season. Bochy regularly pushes his guys to pitch more during the season, to prep them for the playoffs.
Hard to see how the Giants compete against teams like the Dodgers, Astros, and some others that made the playoffs. Most seem to be much deeper on the bench, and as you point out Doc, have some legit power. The stars are going have to align for them to be a contender like this again in the short run. The core guys are going to have to produce and not get hurt, they are going to need to get at least one big bat and the pitching staff does not have a lot of slack in it if someone doesn't perform. Not impossible but not encouraging either when you see how teams like the Dodgers and Astros are built.
ReplyDeleteBilly Baseball
I applaud the many savvy draft/trade/FA moves by the Dodgers and Astros to become World Series combatants, but in my view the series came down to the last major move by each team: Verlander and Darvish. The "Stros won that exchange and hence the series.
ReplyDeleteYou all have said it but I will repeat: the Core 4 was probably the part of the Giants roster that I did not fully appreciate during the 3 in 5 years.
Will next year be like this year where the baseball is tattooed all over the place? If you're the Giants, you don't want to be chasing yesterday's trends.
Dodgers didn't like the price the Tigers were asking for Verlander. (Nor the Cubs.) Hard to imagine at the time that Darvish would get beat up like this in the Series.
DeleteEveryone is talking about the quick hooks (I think a lot of that is emulating Bochy's success in the post-season), but, wow, it was pretty clear Darvish didn't have last night. I'm surprised Roberts stuck with him as long as he did. Game 7.
Good comments - I was skeptical that a big swing like Bellinger's would not have holes. Gleeful that he was exploited in the WS. Was it more curveballs?
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty amazing that the Astros took it, considering their bullpen. So much weaker than the Dodgers going in, then Giles disappeared. Hinch did a pretty amazing job walking the tightrope with what he had. I think pitching will be an issue for the Astros going forward, even with Verlander and Keuchel.
ReplyDeleteAstros pitching took what Bellinger gave them. If he's going to flail at down and in sliders, throw 'em. Wow, he looked bad. I hope this is a hole he has trouble correcting. But, wouldn't count on it.
Dodgers are going to be very good for a while. I know that was the thought on the Cubs last year. But the Dodgers still have blue-chippers coming up. Urias, Verdugo, etc. They have a good vibe going, people want to be there. I'd be surprised if they didn't lock down Morrow. While the Giants really can't afford to go get Stanton, the Dodgers certainly could if they wanted. They have options to improve this off-season.
Yes, the Giants don't want to be chasing trends...but, they did just hire Astros assisting hitting coach Alonzo Powell. So, they're trying to backwards engineer the secret sauce a bit.
Flat out, it comes down to this: the Astros and Dodgers built well. It's more impressive with Dodgers, because they did it without tearing down to the studs and drafting first three years in a row. And the Giants have not drafted well.
Just thinking pitching: Outside of Bumgarner, the Giants have developed...well, not much lately. Being overly harsh, but it is what it is. Stratton, Bede, Bickford, Crick. All first-rounders, all, well, pretty much underperforming expectations. Yes, the book is not closed on Stratton, Bede & Crick. Yes, Evans got something for Bickford. But I don't think anyone thinks these picks are working out well.
The pipeline not producing pitching that leads to signing Shark, Cueto & Melancon. It's these type of expenditures that limit financially what the Giants can do going forward.
When the Giants traded Wheeler, Evans assured Sabean that the Giants system had enough pitching going forward. Not knocking the trade. Didn't really work out for anyone. But, that's a point in time (that we can see with hindsight) where the Giants self-assessment was off. Even after 2011, the Giants traded Jonathan Sanchez. Great trade, obviously. But conventional wisdom at the time was that the Giants were crazy to trade a young, controllable starter. I think the Giants still really believed that the system would produce more quality starters.
Great comments about the Giants' development of pitchers. Adding to their current pitching woes is that two of their best drafted pitchers were done by age 30.
ReplyDeleteKinda scary: 2018 Giants can start 6 of 2014's 8 position player starters (7 if they resign Morse -- LOL) plus Span is much like Pagan. 8 out of 8, sort of.
ReplyDeleteWhen they start Bumgarner and relieve with Strickland or Kontos, it would be essentially the same team -- 4 years older.
That was a winner, then, it's not good news, now.
What have the Giants actually improved?
Well, they did add Cueto, Samardzija, Matt Moore and Melancon on the pitching side. That's been a bit of a mixed bag, but they did try.
DeleteRight, I kinda meant internally.
DeleteThere are some bull pen guys coming along.
They definitely make a significant effort (especially financially) to do something.
And, maybe all of those guys you mentioned will cycle high in '18 and SF will be relevant.
Even eeking into the playoffs, if those pitchers and the dirt-bike guy come through, the Giants would be tough in any short series.
Without HRs, the challenge is obviously for those guys to keep the opposition in the park.
One more day for Cueto to decide -- no word as of 1 PM Friday.
And Melky @ 33 is a FA again...
The good thing about the Dodgers making it to the World Series is that they are as worn out as the Astros without a title to show for it ;)
ReplyDeleteThe reason the Dodgers were taking their pitchers out so early is because one saber discovery was that pitchers get hit around by the third time of facing the lineup, so they kept the rope very short for guys like Hill, especially him for some reason.
ReplyDeleteI saw the series as a case of robo-management vs. integrated management. You could just see that with the way each manager took out starting pitchers.
For me, that's where the game was won or lost, the Dodgers managed their players much like the A's, which is not a huge surprise since their GM came from Oakland, like they were baseball cards who produce numbers based on the numbers on the back of their cards, whereas Houston at least tried to feel whether their players had it or not. If the situation was reversed, I could see the Dodgers just bringing out Giles over and over again, because the numbers says so.
Where the Dodgers lost was both pulling pitchers too soon, like Hill, and pulling pitchers too late, like Darvish and Kershaw, when they got hit. All that crap I saw on the internet about how much better Kershaw was than Bumgarner, pretty much that now, after he blew huge leads twice in the World Series. Hopefully that's dead and buried, and we won't see that again.
I did notice the Dodgers nice pickups like Turner and Taylor, and there was another cheap guy who was mentioned during the games. I thought similarly, that they are doing things well in player development and scouting. I took solace that they wasted all that with their game management.