Yanks Lose ALCS, 3 Games to 2

Photos: Jose Altuve's Gem Mint 10 rookie card, from my collection.

Yanks lose 4-0 and go home as the Houston Astros move on to the World Series. So despite Judge's 50+ homers, a high-powered offense, and getting past the heavily-favored Indians, the Yanks go home. What. A Damn. Shame.

Sox 9 Yanks 6 August 18, 2017

Great game last night at Fenway with Chris Dusel. Besides Sox win, most surprising things are the rain, thunder and lightning soak New England but somehow don't hit Boston; the game starts on time and never gets delayed by rain; and Hanley Ramirez is much better defensively at 1st then he is at the plate right now. Sox pitcher leaves early with back spasms. Bullpen walks and hits everyone. Judge leaves the bases loaded twice. Yankees score 4. Yanks bullpen walks and hits everyone. Sox score 4. Addison Reed, of all people, calms things down. Entire 7th inning takes just over an hour. Chapman has Derek Lowe body language and doesn't consider backing up home plate (which you learn to do in Little League). Girardi comes out and yells at Chapman. Sox win!

I'm Okay with this Non-Trade

Photo: Frazier, Robertson and Kahnle, from this mlb.com page.

The Sox didn't need Todd Frazier and David Robertson and Tommy Kahnle (who has serious promise) for what the White Sox must've been asking. Chicago got Tyler Clippard, who's an okay middle relief guy, but also #30 prospect Blake Rutherford, lefty Ian Clarkin and OF Tito Polo (an awesome name) from the Yanks, who by making this trade continue to get older as they deal away their young prospects.

Boston's bullpen is already amongst the best in baseball, so shelling out serious prospects for two more relievers is a questionable move. Robertson is tempting because he's solid and he's signed through next year, but I'm a little concerned with how frequently he moves around. He's been traded a lot, which means he's a good player but not someone who must be held onto. He was a free agent signing recently as the Yanks let him go, but why was that?

As for Frazier, he's barely hitting above the Mendoza line for the year, and has hit about .233 since June. He's got good power numbers and he's solid at third, but he's also a free agent at the end of this season. His pull swing would work well at Fenway because of The Wall, but it won't work as well at Yankee Stadium, where it's deeper to left. He's not better defensively than Marrero, and his average isn't better than Marrero's or Holt's, and the Sox already have players who can give you the occasional dinger, as Hanley showed in the 15th inning at 1 a.m. this morning, which I actually saw because I'm on vacation. In fact, if Ramirez, Betts and Bradley can hit like we know they can, the homers they produce will more than compensate for whatever Frazier could've given them. 

So to trade even more prospects from a prospect-depleted system for a guy who you may have for just half a season, who isn't better defensively than who you already have, and who won't produce more homers and RBIs than guys you already have in the lineup (if they get on track) doesn't make sense to me at all. And it also doesn't make sense to get two more relievers and disrupt a bullpen that's already one of the best in the majors.

I'd pass on this. This was an okay non-trade for me.

ALCS Tied at 1

A few quick notes on this late night / early morning:

--I happened to have been lucky enough to watch the Patriots' comeback with 5 seconds left, and this Sox comeback, in the same night.  Ever since 2003, it's been great to be a Boston-area baseball and football fan.

--And I just caught the tail-end of both.  But what else was there to see?

--I know Bill James says there's no such thing as clutch, but I've been watching these two guys for a very long time now, and David Ortiz and Tom Brady sure look like clutch players to me.

--If there's no such thing as a clutch player, why would I want David Ortiz up at a crucial time, and not A-Rod, when the latter's numbers are clearly so much better overall?

--If there's no such thing as a clutch player, why is David Ortiz so respected as one by the other players--and why is A-Rod so not respected as one by the other players?  The players would know, right?

--Bill James has an open reservation to come to my house--or to take me out to dinner, preferably at a sports bar, so I can watch the games--and explain why he says that, statistically, there's no such thing as clutch.

--When your team has been held hitless for over 15 innings over two ALCS games, you should lose both.

--It is a testament to this team that they won one tonight, and actually could have, and perhaps should have, won it last night.

--I would agree that there's no such thing as momentum, but I saw the 2004 ALCS.  Then again, I also saw the 2008 ALCS, and was at Fenway for the eight-run comeback win, down by seven in the seventh, in Game 5.  If they come back from the brink and win that game, and they win game six, momentum stipulates that they'd also win game seven, right?  Nope.  So I'm undecided about whether momentum really exists.

--If it does, the Sox have it going to Detroit.  But you're only as good as your last game.

--Part of me thinks the Sox should be up 2-0.  The other half of me slaps around the first half, and says to be thankful that they're tied.  The Sox really should have won last night, and they really should have lost tonight, so I'll agree that the slate is as it should be.

--The Tigers bullpen doesn't impress me.  The only advantage the Tigers have is in starting pitching.  Which is huge, but if the Sox can hang in there and get into their bullpen, they have a good chance of winning one, and perhaps two, in Detroit.  They'll have to win at least one to bring it back to Boston.

--Cabrera's swing is coming around.  And most of the Sox's swings are not.  Even with the slam, Ortiz is hitting below a buck fifty.  And Ellsbury still doesn't have a hit.

--There've been four grand slams by Sox players in the playoffs, and I've seen them all.  Ortiz's tonight.  J.D. Drew's in the 2007 ALCS.  Johnny Damon's, of course, in Game 7 of the 2004 ALCS.  And Troy O'Leary's in the 1999 ALDS, in Game 5, after Nomar was intentionally walked to get to him. 

--In his next at-bat in that same game, after another intentional walk to Nomar, O'Leary hit a three-run homer.  This was Mike Hargrove's famously mismanaged series, when even the announcers said he used his bullpen like he was panicking--up two games to zero.  He was fired after that ALDS.  This was the same game that Pedro came in with a busted back and pitched six hitless innings.  For those who care about such things.  Don't ask me how I remember such things--I just do.  But don't ask me anything about yesterday.

--I'm not surprised that the Sox have struck out over 30 times in the two games.  Isn't that what some of them have been doing all year?  Luckily they walk a lot, too, which is why Napoli can strike out a team-record 187 times this year, and still have an on-base percentage of around .350, which is decent.

--Left unnoticed is the job of the Sox bullpen these last two games.  And, for the most part, its defense.

--And Joe West's strike zone was amongst the most inconsistent I've ever seen, for both teams.  He's just happy this ALCS isn't between the Sox and Yanks.  (He infamously said two years ago that those teams make a mockery of the game because their games last so long.  How dare the hitters work the count and try to get on base?)

--Let's not get greedy if the Sox lose.  I know you expected them to be middle of the pack, if not in the basement, this year.  I know you did, because I did, too.

--Ortiz is hitting about .500 against Verlander for his career, and the Sox overall handle him pretty well, considering how dominating he is to everyone else.  Daniel Nava infamously had a great game against him.

--Go Sox.  They do better when I don't watch, so I'll continue not to, and just catch the last few innings.

Red Sox to the ALCS

A few quick thoughts about the last few games of the ALDS:

--Peralta can quick-pitch Napoli for strike-three as often as he wants, as long as he uncorks a game-tying wild pitch first, like he did last night.

--The results were good, but I can't say I approve of how Maddon managed his bullpen yesterday.  Why he didn't do the same the night before--which was also a must-win game for them--is a mystery, if he thought the situation that dire.

--And you're instilling a sense of fear in your team if you're mixing and matching your pitchers so often that you're basically screaming out that your team can't afford to make even one wrong pitch.  I think that made the team more stiff at the plate as well.  Some players do not perform well under such intense alarm.  See: Fernando Rodney.  Perhaps Longoria as well; he had more indecisive half-swings in that one game that he probably had in the past few weeks combined.

--Farrell managed his team much better than Maddon, who's also a good manager, but sometimes steals the spotlight from the players during games and post-game interviews.  Pinch-hitting Bogaerts for Drew was a helluva move, and not one he made all year.  He normally sticks with Drew even at times when he must know he shouldn't.  But Bogaerts drew two walks in two PAs, and scored the tying run.  Taking out Peavy at just the right moment, after just 74 pitches, took steel nerve.  Bringing in Breslow earlier than usual, and leaving him in longer than usual, was just the right move.  Letting Tazawa face just that one batter, rather than having him finish the eighth, which he would normally do, was also just right.  Perfect decisions at exactly the right moments.

--Breslow speaks just like the Ivy-League educated guy that he is.  And I mean that as a compliment.  For a ballplayer, he's extremely well-spoken, and I mean that in the kindest of all possible ways.

--I don't know why Maddon didn't leave Moore in longer.  When he came in, the announcers (and me) thought he was in for at least four innings.

--The game lasted just under four hours, until 1:30 a.m., for those keeping track.  TBS might want to consider that next time it wants to start a playoff game at 8:30 pm.  If Girardi had managed the way Maddon did, and had the game been Sox / Yanks instead, it would have lasted past 2:30 a.m.

--Bottom line: The Rays were tired, and couldn't hit.

--I wouldn't want Rodney for my closer.  There seems to be something a little off-kilter rattling around in there.  And even when he does well--one person can't have a completely askew cap, off-center to the point that it draws unnecessary attention to itself, and a bow-and-arrow genuflect to God.  If he wanted to scream "Hey, look at me!" then he should have literally screamed "Hey, look at me!" as he was walking two and hitting a batter in the ninth inning of a must-win game.

--The Trop is a travesty that simply needs to go.  Has anyone considered the possibility that the team draws like crap not because the fanbase sucks, but because it doesn't want to come to that park?  It even looks terrible on television.  And what if the catwalk fiasco had been the final play of a Game 7 of the World Series?  If there was a great team playing in a great park and the fans still didn't come, then it would be time to move the team.  First, how about playing in an actual ballpark first?

--Tigers or A's?  Are you kidding?  Go A's!!!  (I wish a World Series for Billy Beane.  But not this year.)

Game 3--Yankees 4 Red Sox 2, and Roger Ebert

Not too much to say about this one, mostly because I missed most of it, because...well, because I have a life, that's why, and I had other things to do.  But I caught a little, not enough to post a picture and to write a long entry, but just enough to say a couple of things:

--Though he lost today, if Dempster strikes out 8 in five innings, and gives up one solid run and two on a little blooper just over the infield, then he'll win more than he'll lose.

--But he can't walk four and throw so many pitches that he's over 100 in just five innings.

--I didn't know that David Ross, the Sox's back-up catcher, is the catcher whose pitchers have the lowest aggregate ERA in the majors over the past few years.  In other words, he's Varitek, but with a cannon for an arm, as he's also among the majors' best at throwing out runners.  And he hit well tonight, too.

--Pedro's doing furniture commercials, for those of you still wondering if an athlete can sell out many years after he's retired.

--Losing 4-2 is a good loss, if there can be such a thing.  Even the best teams, the 100-game winners, will lose 62.  I'm not saying the Sox will win 100 games--they won't--but sometimes the other pitcher just pitches a little bit better, like tonight.  Still a well-played game, one that didn't overly tax the bullpen.

--In fact, it was a well-played series.  You don't try to win every game if there are 162 of them; you try to win every series.  They did that, and in a hostile ballpark.  Against a Triple-A major league team, sure, but you have to beat up on those.

--I'm getting comments left for me to moderate by INSKATES.  It sounded suspicious, so I looked it up, thinking it may just be an online nickname for somebody.  It's not; it's an online company that sells ice skates.  So if you see it here, or elsewhere, let the blog owner know, and don't click on the link.  The comment itself was oddly worded and a little suspicious.

--Bradley continues to impress.  Victorino was maybe a little too aggressive, trying to come home on a ball that didn't get too far away, but that kind of an attitude towards the game will win more games than it'll lose.

--It's not sports-related, but I'll go there, anyway: Roger Ebert dying--I give that a thumb's down.  I looked forward to his review of a movie sometimes more than I looked forward to the movie itself.  The first Pulitzer-prize winner for movie criticism, his reviews of movies were often about more than just that movie.  His reviews were specific, yet irreverent, very knowledgeable about theory and about the business, yet also free of jargon and very easy to read.  Smart, and funny.  Very down-to-Earth, filled with common sense and a real affection for movies in general.  He will be missed.

1958 Topps Eddie Mathews VG-EX

Photos: Eddie Mathews' 1958 Topps baseball card, front and back, from my collection

Okay, so we'll start off the revamped site with one of my favorite HOF players nobody remembers.  I'll start off with him because I've always tried to Remember James (he was Jesus's brother), which is what I call an attempt to purposely remember someone or something who everyone else has forgotten.  (It's the title of one of my WIPs, too.)  I'm also starting off with this exact card because it was one of the three awesome ones my better half gave me for Christmas.  (She also gave me Sox/Rangers tix, too!)  I thought it'd be nice to start it off with one of the three she gave me, rather than the one of the several thousands I owned beforehand.

The Card

The card is in very good shape.  Well, it's PSA-graded very good to excellent, but you know what I mean.  The corners are sharp; the front and back are clean.  The picture is still a little glossy.  The only blemish, really, is the truly bad cut of the card: it's very off-center.  Since this card is not for sale, that doesn't matter as much to me.  (My better half bought it for me because she liked the blue backdrop and white stars.)  It's got a great aesthetics look, and it looks great in the case--and it has nice sentimental value.  The back has a grid layout with his 1957 stats for the season, and against each team in his division.  It doesn't have his career totals.  (This is odd for any Topps card.)  The grid on the back was a Topps staple, in one form or another, throughout the 50s and up until 1960.  Topps cards throughout the 50s looked great.  The card number is in the upper left in a star, and the blurb is written by the editors of Sport Magazine--as it says.  The copywriter pre-dated Bill James by a few years when he made it a point to notice that Mathews hit many more homers on the road than he did at home.  His 30 road homers (out of 47) was a Major League record.  I'll bet that his home ballpark cost him quite a few homers in his career--and he still managed to hit 512!

Career

Nobody remembers Eddie Mathews today because he played on the same team, for a great many years, as Hank Aaron.  Though Aaron was clearly the better player, it wasn't always very clear that he would be.  A quick glance at the opening day lineup in 1957, when the Braves won the World Series, showed that Aaron batted second (?!) and Mathews third.  Joe Adcock, a power-hitting first basemen, hit cleanup, if you're wondering.  You should be, because though Adcock was a good player, he wasn't Mathews or Aaron, and the fifth-place hitter was Bobby Thomson, whose name you should know.  He hit the Homer Heard 'Round the World, which was a big deal because he normally did not hit homers or drive in runs--which Mathews and Aaron did, prodigiously.  For those who don't know, the 1st and 2nd place hitters in a lineup are supposed to get on base so that the 3rd, 4th and 5th hitters can drive them in.  Hank Aaron should not hit second--ever.  That's a waste of his resources--which were among the best ever, as were Mathews, on a lesser level.  Mathews was Aaron lite, you might say.  You want a line-drive, walking, taking pitches guy hitting second, not Hank Aaron.  Though Dustin Pedroia can drive in runs hitting 4th, it is very rare to have a contact hitter who is valuable hitting 2nd and 4th--and I'll bet Pedroia has more value for his team overall hitting 2nd.  Aaron wouldn't.

Why all this?  Because if you look at Mathews stats, for 1957 and for his career (which you should here, his stats page at baseball-reference.com--my source for all stats unless stated otherwise in the text), you'll see that he didn't drive in as many runs as he should've.  You would think that on Opening Day of a World Series winning year, the manager would put his best hitting lineup out there, barring injury.  The manager thought, for some reason, that Aaron should hit second, and Mathews third.  (I'd put Aaron third, Mathews fourth and Adcock, or whoever, fifth.  Aaron hits third because his average is a lot better than Mathews', with equal or far greater power production, so you'd want him to bat more often, on average.)  If the lineup was jockeyed like this, this would be one reason why Mathews didn't drive in as many runs as he should have--even with Aaron still hitting in front of him.  (Aaron hitting 2nd makes even less sense when you consider that the pitcher hits, so Aaron has the 9th and 1st place batters hitting in front of him, which drastically reduces his chances to drive in runs.)  Mathews did have some monster years--135 RBIs one year, 114 another--but he drove in over 100 just five times, which is a low number considering that he batted on the same team as Hank Aaron for a long time.  They had good supplementary hitters, too, like Bobby Thomson, Joe Adcock and Wes Covington, and so on.  The point is, someone hitting with these guys is expected to drive in a lot of runs.  Mathews did--1,453 of them--but with 512 homers, and hitting with those guys just mentioned, that isn't a ton.  He had a lot of years with 80-95 RBIs, hitting with Aaron and Thompson, and I'd need more time to research why.  He'd hit over .300 one year, then .260 the next, with medium to high walk totals and low strikeout totals (for a homerun hitter).  Oddly, he scored over 100 runs frequently, but with totals between 100 and 109.  You'd expect someone hitting with these guys, who walks a lot (and consistently among the league-leaders in on-base percentage), to score more runs than that.  He hit .265, .263 and .233 for three straight years, with decent power and OBP numbers, then had a very good year for power (32/95) but with a bad batting average and OBP.  Then his skills eroded.

He still had enough in the tank to win a World Series with the Tigers in 1968 (if you knew that, go to the head of the class), after appearances with the Braves, against the Yanks, in 1957 and 1958.  He was considered the National League's best third baseman before Mike Schmidt came along, and he was elected to the Hall on his fifth try in the late 70s.  (You wonder why the best power-hitting third baseman in baseball history before Schmidt would need multiple tries to get into the Hall.)  He died of a pnuemonia-related illness in 2001.

In short, as great as he was, Mathews wasn't able to put it all together and have many consecutive monster years, and he fell off the grid after 1966.  He played 17 total seasons, but only about five great ones, and maybe six or seven good or above-average ones.  Hitting on a good hitting team with great pitching (Warren Spahn won the opening game of '57), he could've, and should've, done better.  The lineups didn't help; the home ballparks hurt him; and I suspect a lingering injury or succession of injuries that he just played through.

P.S.--He was thought a very handsome guy.  He was sort of quiet, but a fiery and intense competitor when the time called (not all the time, like Brett), and, despite some heavy drinking, was well-liked and well-respected.

Back in First

Photo: Reddick between Ortiz and Pedroia, celebrating his 10th inning, game-winning hit.  Matt Stone, Boston Herald

Four days' fever of over 101 degrees, plus the moving and such (and a little writing), have kept me away, but I thought it was time to add a little perspective:

--You've heard that baseball is a game of inches; this series showed this.  Last night, Rivera made two mistakes: he left a ball up to Scutaro (double) and another to Pedroia (SF).  That's it.  The Sox finally played small ball when it mattered, which is not easy against Mo.  Pedroia's sacrifice fly was just as impressive as Scutaro's double.  Mo usually Ks the batter or makes him ground out (with a drawn-in infield, that's usually bad) in that situation.  The Sox had missed better chances to score all game--and all series.  Anyway, that's it.  Two pitches slightly up.  Despite a Top-5 sports reporter's column, games now have almost no bearing in October.  Mo will not be fazed then by this.  CC?  Maybe a little bit more.

--Having said that, it is amazing that Sabathia is 10-2 against the rest of the majors, with an ERA barely above 2, and 0-4 against Boston with an ERA about 7.  I repeat, though: This will matter only a little bit in October.

--The Sox 10-2 record against the Yanks is also inexplicable.  But there are 7 regular season games yet between these two.  If the Yanks win them all, we're having the exact opposite conversation in October.

--Here's to hoping that Reddick plays when J.D. returns.  In fact, I'd prefer Reddick in right in the postseason as well.  Maybe a platoon?  How's Reddick hitting against lefties, anyway?  Well, he's 9-23, .331, over 1.000 OPS against lefties, according to Baseball-Reference.com.  How about we leave him in against both for awhile?  He's being platooned against lefties; I don't see that (outside of stroking a veterans ego).

--The Yankees starting pitching staff is either seriously overachieving, or coming into its own.  Nova and other unknowns have 9, 10 wins.  The proof will be in October.

--Speaking of October, the Sox/Yanks have a 9+ game lead in the wild card race.  What race?

--I hope I can land a playoff ticket.  Last playoff game I saw was the Sox 7-run comeback against the Rays in 2008.  Went with my Dad; glad I did.  It was his last game.

--Speaking of starting pitching, Beckett and Lester are gonna hafta be Johnson and Schilling in order for the Sox to go anywhere in the playoffs.

--The Yanks are even more lost, with CC and who knows.  Nova, I guess.  Outside of those guys, Girardi pulls the starter and hopes for great relief like he got on Friday night.  Every game.  Or the offense will have to pound the other team into submission.

--By the way, I ran into some Action Packed (that's the brand name) football cards from 1993-1995.  Includes a Marshall Faulk rookie card (worth $10), and some Montanas, Elways, Marinos, Bledsoes, and other HOFers and stars.  All great shape; no wear or tear, corners sharp.  It's all worth over $42, but I'll let it go for $20; I'm moving and don't feel like dealing with more cards (I have literally thousands already).  Drop me an email at sb {at} stevenbelanger {dot} com if you're interested.