2022 MLB Postseason Thread

[chasfh]

13 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

True enough if you mean MVP to be 'best' player. But there is an equally valid though different way to take it, which would be that if team accomplishes nothing, no-one on that team was of particular value because they accomplished nothing. As long as you have people who hold both views of what 'MVP' means, that debate will continue. And of course the debate generates engagement=interest, so I don't any reason for anyone in baseball to try to resolve that ambiguity!

Indeed. I'm not advocating for a mandated set of criteria writers must use to vote on MVP. It's basically up to the individual writer. If I had a vote, I wouldn't take the team's record into account.

[RandyMarsh]

I think the only reason team's record should come into play is to weigh the differences between performing in a potential high pressure playoff race vs. A low pressure non contender team.

There's two schools of thought to this, the first being that it may be easier to do the latter since the games aren't as important ,crowds likely smaller and perhaps you don't always get the other team's best like the contending team might.

Otoh you could say all those things makes it more difficult for a player to get up for and perform at his best. Also this player may feel pressure to perform knowing the rest of his team sucks so nobody is going to pick up his slack.

Whatever view you have that would be the tiebreaker for me if the stats say it is a toss up. 

Edited October 27, 2022 by RandyMarsh

[chasfh]

If the Phillies can somehow manage to beat the Astros in the Series, they will be the team with the third-worst record to win a ring—and the team with the worst-record to have not beaten the Tigers on their way to the ring.

[casimir]

On 10/26/2022 at 7:25 PM, Jim Cowan said:

I agree, I was just throwing it back in Reggie's face. It always seems so hypocritical to demand a gargantuan contract while at the same time admitting that they need a whole bunch of good teammates.

Drink stirring straws can be expensive.

[chasfh]

Justin Verlander Spotlight

Justin Verlander takes the mound for the Astros in Game One. This will be Verlander's eighth start in a World Series, but he'll be hoping for a better outcome than he's had in his previous seven starts. Verlander has an 0-6 record in the World Series, and his 5.68 ERA is third highest all-time among those with five World Series starts.

Player	ERA	W	L
Don Newcombe	8.59	0	4
Carl Erskine	5.83	2	2
Justin Verlander	5.68	0	6
Don Sutton	5.26	2	3
Hank Borowy	4.97	3	2
Gary Nolan	4.96	1	2
Bob Shawkey	4.75	1	3
Clayton Kershaw	4.46	3	2
Burleigh Grimes	4.29	3	4
Hal Schumacher	4.13	2	2

See the full list on Stathead.com

[oblong]

I know it's a fluke of birth year and that he was in the WS his rookie year, but Verlander will make a WS start in his third decade, covering a 17 year span.

Anyone else done that?

 

 

[Tenacious D]

15 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Justin Verlander Spotlight

 

Justin Verlander takes the mound for the Astros in Game One. This will be Verlander's eighth start in a World Series, but he'll be hoping for a better outcome than he's had in his previous seven starts. Verlander has an 0-6 record in the World Series, and his 5.68 ERA is third highest all-time among those with five World Series starts.

 

Player	ERA	W	L
Don Newcombe	8.59	0	4
Carl Erskine	5.83	2	2
Justin Verlander	5.68	0	6
Don Sutton	5.26	2	3
Hank Borowy	4.97	3	2
Gary Nolan	4.96	1	2
Bob Shawkey	4.75	1	3
Clayton Kershaw	4.46	3	2
Burleigh Grimes	4.29	3	4
Hal Schumacher	4.13	2	2

See the full list on Stathead.com

Really his only blemish.  It’s not a pressure thing, because there are plenty examples of him stepping up in the spotlight.  Fatigue factor or just fluke?

[chasfh]

Just now, Tenacious D said:

Really his only blemish.  It’s not a pressure thing, because there are plenty examples of him stepping up in the spotlight.  Fatigue factor or just fluke?

I think it's a fluke. He lost six games in a seven-game span in 2008, and five games in a seven-game span in 2014. He'll still be a slam-dunk first-round inner-circle Hall-of-Famer.

[oblong]

2 minutes ago, chasfh said:

I think it's a fluke. He lost six games in a seven-game span in 2008, and five games in a seven-game span in 2014. He'll still be a slam-dunk first-round inner-circle Hall-of-Famer.

I agree.  Jack Morris gets his fair share of latitudes for being a "big time pitcher in the playoffs" but he had some stinkers in 87 and 92.

[casimir]

3 hours ago, oblong said:

I know it's a fluke of birth year and that he was in the WS his rookie year, but Verlander will make a WS start in his third decade, covering a 17 year span.

Anyone else done that?

 

 

Still on my bucket list.  Doesn't look promising.

[lordstanley]

3 perfect innings so far by JV tonight.

[gehringer_2]

14 minutes ago, lordstanley said:

3 perfect innings so far by JV tonight.

and two perfect innings from Tucker.

[SoCalTiger]

And one not so good inning for JV

[chasfh]

Castellanos with the catch of his life!

[JackPine]

Based on Nick's post-game interview, he attributes his bad defense to getting bored in the field during the regular season

[Tenacious D]

JV’s WS ERA is now 6.07, the highest among all pitchers with at least 30 IP.  He might get one or two more shots at remedying this.

[lordstanley]

Rob Thomson, the pride of Sarnia. 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/baseball/article-a-look-at-phillies-manager-and-sarnia-ont-native-rob-thomson/

[Jim Cowan]

Rob Thomson looks like the guy who comes to fix your dishwasher.

[Hongbit]

He’s also proof at how meaningless major league managers have become.  

[chasfh]

5 hours ago, Tenacious D said:

JV’s WS ERA is now 6.07, the highest among all pitchers with at least 30 IP.  He might get one or two more shots at remedying this.

I can't imagine he won't be back for game 5. Who knows, maybe he pushes for Game 4 if they're down 3-0.

[chasfh]

13 hours ago, chasfh said:

Castellanos with the catch of his life!

A bit of follow-up analysis on this:

It was a good catch in the moment, although not quite uh-mazing, in that it's not as though he picked it right off his shoe-tops, or off the ground. He caught it about a foot and a half off the ground. Did he have to actually slide, like into a base, to catch it? Maybe he did. Speaking only for myself, as an outfielder, I find it easier to slide into a catch low off the ground, versus diving forward for it. I feel like I have better control of the process that way. Maybe he does, too?

I saw in an article that the catch he made—based on where Nick started from, how the ball was hit (EV/LA), and where it landed (distance, placement)—had a 65% probability of being caught by a typical big league right fielder. That means the ball should be caught more often than not caught. I'm guessing Nick got his characteristically poor jump on the ball, seeing how the jump portion of his Savant card is so darkly blue. I could not find any video of him just as the ball was hit, i.e., what kind of jump he actually got. But I would think that a player who gets a good jump, or maybe even an average jump, catches that ball without having to catch a grass stain along with it.

Nevertheless, let's give Old Nick his due. Regardless of any of the underlying factors involved, he did catch the ball to extend the game into extra innings, and it was a five-star catch for him. Had he clanked it, the Phillies would have lost on that very play, and Nick would be a temporary goat rather than the temporary GOAT.

 

 

[mtutiger]

1 hour ago, chasfh said:

Nevertheless, let's give Old Nick his due. Regardless of any of the underlying factors involved, he did catch the ball to extend the game into extra innings, and it was a five-star catch for him. Had he clanked it, the Phillies would have lost on that very play, and Nick would be a temporary goat rather than the temporary GOAT.

 

 

This.... a different fielder with more range or who is better positioned maybe makes that catch with more ease, but given the time in the game and context (WS Game 1, on the road, significant underdog), the pressure was ratcheted up greatly.

[oblong]

It is easier as an OF to slide vs dive because you can still smother it. Also less of an injury risk.  I saved runs on a play in high school that way. Lefty up hit one about  15 feet behind 3B.  I had little chance of catching it but I threw my body at it and kept the play on front of me. 

[chasfh]

1 minute ago, oblong said:

It is easier as an OF to slide vs dive because you can still smother it. Also less of an injury risk.  I saved runs on a play in high school that way. Lefty up hit one about  15 feet behind 3B.  I had little chance of catching it but I threw my body at it and kept the play on front of me. 

That, plus when you slide I think your eyes stay steadier as you descend, maybe because of the way your head is positioned vis a vis the rest of your body. 

[Tenacious D]

4 hours ago, chasfh said:

A bit of follow-up analysis on this:

It was a good catch in the moment, although not quite uh-mazing, in that it's not as though he picked it right off his shoe-tops, or off the ground. He caught it about a foot and a half off the ground. Did he have to actually slide, like into a base, to catch it? Maybe he did. Speaking only for myself, as an outfielder, I find it easier to slide into a catch low off the ground, versus diving forward for it. I feel like I have better control of the process that way. Maybe he does, too?

I saw in an article that the catch he made—based on where Nick started from, how the ball was hit (EV/LA), and where it landed (distance, placement)—had a 65% probability of being caught by a typical big league right fielder. That means the ball should be caught more often than not caught. I'm guessing Nick got his characteristically poor jump on the ball, seeing how the jump portion of his Savant card is so darkly blue. I could not find any video of him just as the ball was hit, i.e., what kind of jump he actually got. But I would think that a player who gets a good jump, or maybe even an average jump, catches that ball without having to catch a grass stain along with it.

Nevertheless, let's give Old Nick his due. Regardless of any of the underlying factors involved, he did catch the ball to extend the game into extra innings, and it was a five-star catch for him. Had he clanked it, the Phillies would have lost on that very play, and Nick would be a temporary goat rather than the temporary GOAT.

 

 

Nick’s always been a bit of a bonehead, but it’s nice to see him have a nice moment.  I agree that it wasn’t as difficult a catch as he made it look, but if it helped the Astros lose, I’m all for it.