[y66]

September 30, 2008
Reasons to Root for Each of the Playoff Teams
By TYLER KEPNER at http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com

Quote

One of the fun things about October is that, when it’s over, there are reasons to be genuinely happy for the champions. Last fall, it was hard not to feel good for Boston’s Jon Lester, who overcame cancer and won the clinching game in Colorado. The year before, the St. Louis Cardinals rewarded their loyal fans with their first crown in 24 years.

This fall is no exception. Here are a few fun reasons why it would be great to see each team win the World Series.

Dodgers – Don Mattingly. The Dodgers’ hitting coach is the ultimate class act, yet somehow missed out on the World Series despite spending 18 years in uniform for the Yankees.

Phillies – The city of Philadelphia has gone 25 years without a championship. It’s the only city with teams in the four major sports that can make that dubious claim. In other words, taken as a whole, Philadelphia teams are every bit as futile as the Chicago Cubs – 100 winless seasons and counting.

Red Sox – This is a tough one. I guess it’d nice to see Jason Bay get a ring. Seems like a nice fellow. But with the way New England teams dominate everything, and with two titles in the last four years, there’s not a lot of sentiment for Boston.

Rays – How neat would it be for Don Zimmer to own a ring from the Brooklyn Dodgers and the Tampa Bay Rays? Also, Carl Crawford stuck it out through the hopeless years and Manager Joe Maddon might be the friendliest person in baseball.

Yeah, very hard to pull for the Red Sox even though Theo Epstein has gotta be the smartest, hardest working guy in baseball.

How cool would it be to see the Rays and Joe Maddon go all the way? 10x as cool as that incredible Wimbledon final for me.

[Lobowolf]

Would be truly amazing. I'm actually still amazed at the Mattingly thing... 18 years as a Yankee & no World Series?! Is that even possible?

[vuroth]

y66, on Oct 9 2008, 09:26 AM, said:

10x as cool as that incredible Wimbledon final for me.

I don't think that ANYTHING could be 10 as cool as that Wimbledon final. Certainly nothing in baseball could.

That said, I wouldn't be too upset if Jason Bay won the WS.

V

[Aberlour10]

y66, on Oct 9 2008, 09:26 AM, said:

10x as cool as that incredible Wimbledon final for me.

It's hard to imagine for an european. From our view it is a game where in 90% of the real play time nothing happens.

Robert

[matmat]

Aberlour10, on Oct 9 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

y66, on Oct 9 2008, 09:26 AM, said:

10x as cool as that incredible Wimbledon final for me.

It's hard to imagine for an european. From our view it is a game where in 90% of the real play time nothing happens.

Robert

right. so why do europeans care about things like golf and cricket... and... omg, bridge?!

[cherdano]

matmat, on Oct 9 2008, 02:33 PM, said:

Aberlour10, on Oct 9 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

y66, on Oct 9 2008, 09:26 AM, said:

10x as cool as that incredible Wimbledon final for me.

It's hard to imagine for an european. From our view it is a game where in 90% of the real play time nothing happens.

Robert

right. so why do europeans care about things like golf and cricket... and... omg, bridge?!

We Europeans don't care about any of those things.

[Elianna]

matmat, on Oct 9 2008, 12:33 PM, said:

Aberlour10, on Oct 9 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

y66, on Oct 9 2008, 09:26 AM, said:

10x as cool as that incredible Wimbledon final for me.

It's hard to imagine for an european. From our view it is a game where in 90% of the real play time nothing happens.

Robert

right. so why do europeans care about things like golf and cricket... and... omg, bridge?!

A better game to mention might be soccer. To someone who doesn't understand the game, it seems like a bunch of guys kicking the ball around, and nothing really happens. But to someone who does, the strategy and skill involved is wonderful.

That is the same point of view I have about baseball.

[pclayton]

Elianna, on Oct 9 2008, 05:53 PM, said:

matmat, on Oct 9 2008, 12:33 PM, said:

Aberlour10, on Oct 9 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

y66, on Oct 9 2008, 09:26 AM, said:

10x as cool as that incredible Wimbledon final for me.

It's hard to imagine for an european. From our view it is a game where in 90% of the real play time nothing happens.

Robert

right. so why do europeans care about things like golf and cricket... and... omg, bridge?!

A better game to mention might be soccer. To someone who doesn't understand the game, it seems like a bunch of guys kicking the ball around, and nothing really happens. But to someone who does, the strategy and skill involved is wonderful.

That is the same point of view I have about baseball.

Right. If you know what to watch for, baseball is a fascinating game with a lot of strategical considerations.

[matmat]

pclayton, on Oct 9 2008, 08:54 PM, said:

Right. If you know what to watch for, baseball is a fascinating game with a lot of strategical considerations.

and spitting. mostly spitting.

[cherdano]

Elianna, on Oct 9 2008, 07:53 PM, said:

matmat, on Oct 9 2008, 12:33 PM, said:

Aberlour10, on Oct 9 2008, 03:21 PM, said:

y66, on Oct 9 2008, 09:26 AM, said:

10x as cool as that incredible Wimbledon final for me.

It's hard to imagine for an european. From our view it is a game where in 90% of the real play time nothing happens.

Robert

right. so why do europeans care about things like golf and cricket... and... omg, bridge?!

A better game to mention might be soccer. To someone who doesn't understand the game, it seems like a bunch of guys kicking the ball around, and nothing really happens. But to someone who does, the strategy and skill involved is wonderful.

That is the same point of view I have about baseball.

Let me make the case that there actually is a difference.
The difference is that most of the tactical decisions in soccer have to be done in real time by the players. There is an amazing difference between tactically intelligent soccer players and less gifted ones, even at the top level.

I find it curious that in all the 3 big US sports (baseball football basketball), the coaches do a lot more tactical micro-managing of the players than in the big European sport. Ok I have no clue about baseball, but it is certainly true for football and basketball.

[Echognome]

cherdano, on Oct 9 2008, 09:51 PM, said:

I find it curious that in all the 3 big US sports (baseball football basketball), the coaches do a lot more tactical micro-managing of the players than in the big European sport. Ok I have no clue about baseball, but it is certainly true for football and basketball.

Football - I definitely agree. I think it's the (major) sport most influenced by the coaches.

Baseball - sure. The coaches decide on how the field is aligned (similar to cricket, except I believe it's the captains who decide), they decide who is pitching, the order of the batters, etc.

Basketball - I'm going to have to disagree, especially in the NBA. So many of the decisions are made real time without the influence of the coach. The coaches decide who goes in and out more often than in soccer, but I would personally consider them akin when it comes to making the decisions on the court/pitch.

Ice Hockey - At least at one time this was considered one of the major sports in the U.S. Not going to contest that may have changed. I would liken it to soccer and basketball.

[matmat]

Echognome, on Oct 10 2008, 11:53 AM, said:

Football - I definitely agree.  I think it's the (major) sport most influenced by the coaches.

I agree, though certain players at certain positions are capable of putting in audible to shift to a better play (Manning the Older comes to mind here)

Quote

Baseball - sure.  The coaches decide on how the field is aligned (similar to cricket, except I believe it's the captains who decide), they decide who is pitching, the order of the batters, etc.

yeah. this is sort of a managerial chess game, which really makes me wonder how some of the coaches keep getting rehired despite their proven lack of ability.

Quote

Basketball - I'm going to have to disagree, especially in the NBA.  So many of the decisions are made real time without the influence of the coach.  The coaches decide who goes in and out more often than in soccer, but I would personally consider them akin when it comes to making the decisions on the court/pitch.

oh, I think in this case it comes down to mostly reactions and athleticism. I don't think the players call plays on the floor, but I think there is more to it than just blindly following the coach's instructions (which, btw, for some teams are sent in every play).

Quote

Ice Hockey - At least at one time this was considered one of the major sports in the U.S.  Not going to contest that may have changed.  I would liken it to soccer and basketball.

ice hockey is a lot more like soccer, which is why I guess it is not as popular as the other three...

[cherdano]

Echognome, on Oct 10 2008, 10:53 AM, said:

cherdano, on Oct 9 2008, 09:51 PM, said:

I find it curious that in all the 3 big US sports (baseball football basketball), the coaches do a lot more tactical micro-managing of the players than in the big European sport. Ok I have no clue about baseball, but it is certainly true for football and basketball.

Football - I definitely agree. I think it's the (major) sport most influenced by the coaches.

Baseball - sure. The coaches decide on how the field is aligned (similar to cricket, except I believe it's the captains who decide), they decide who is pitching, the order of the batters, etc.

Basketball - I'm going to have to disagree, especially in the NBA. So many of the decisions are made real time without the influence of the coach. The coaches decide who goes in and out more often than in soccer, but I would personally consider them akin when it comes to making the decisions on the court/pitch.

Hmm, I thought the coaches usually call the play for their offense. (Obviously they also set up the plays in end-of-game situations during the timeouts.) I agree that still leaves a lot more decisions to the players than in football.

[Elianna]

The manager of a baseball team does not tell the pitcher which pitch to throw at which batter.

The manager does not tell a batter how to anticipate what the pitcher is going to do. (The batter can be told where to try to bat, and whether to bunt, etc...)

Yes, the manager does a lot of the planning, but it's up to the players how they execute. And besides athleticism it takes strength of mind to succeed.

[matmat]

Elianna, on Oct 10 2008, 11:20 PM, said:

The manager of a baseball team does not tell the pitcher which pitch to throw at which batter.

I disagree with this.

[cherdano]

Elianna, on Oct 10 2008, 10:20 PM, said:

The manager of a baseball team does not tell the pitcher which pitch to throw at which batter.

Hmm, I bet the pitching coach does.

Anyway, my point wasn't to take away anything from baseball players or soccer coaches. I am just wondering whether Americans find other things interesting in sports than Europeans(*).

(*)Brits are definitely not considered Europeans for the sake of this discussion..

[Elianna]

cherdano, on Oct 10 2008, 08:24 PM, said:

Elianna, on Oct 10 2008, 10:20 PM, said:

The manager of a baseball team does not tell the pitcher which pitch to throw at which batter.

Hmm, I bet the pitching coach does.

Try again.

[matmat]

Elianna, on Oct 10 2008, 11:25 PM, said:

Try again.

A lot of the "how to pitch to a batter" stuff is decided pre-game by the managerial staff and then told to the battery. Often you will see the catcher looking into the dugout before a giving a signal for a pitch. this is usually to see if a particular play (pitchout/throw to first etc) is on, but sometimes it is simply to get the pitch signal.

[TimG]

matmat, on Oct 10 2008, 11:36 PM, said:

Elianna, on Oct 10 2008, 11:25 PM, said:

Try again.

A lot of the "how to pitch to a batter" stuff is decided pre-game by the managerial staff and then told to the battery. Often you will see the catcher looking into the dugout before a giving a signal for a pitch. this is usually to see if a particular play (pitchout/throw to first etc) is on, but sometimes it is simply to get the pitch signal.

I agree with matmat. I also think how much the battery is involved in the pre-game planning varies from team to team and from player to player. Some catchers are considered good signal callers and do a lot of it themselves, some pitchers have a better idea than others how they want to get a batter out and will shake-off a catcher's signal if they are not in agreement, and some managers will call a large percentage of the pitches.

Boston's catcher, Varitek, is one of those catchers who is very involved in the pre-game planning and is considered a good signal caller. I recall Derek Lowe saying, after he had just pitched a no-hitter, that he didn't shake him off once during the game. Schilling came within an out of a no hitter a couple of years ago and shook off Varitek (for the first time in the game, I think) before the pitch that resulted in the hit.

Angels manager, Mike Scioscia, gives signals before virtually every pitch. Probably not always pitch selection, especially with men on base, but he is much more involved in the pitch-by-pitch play calling than someone like Boston's Francona.

To some extent, positioning defensive players is similar. Coaches will often signal fielders to adjust their position -- no just infield in or infield back, or shift on. But, some players take extra time to better understand the hitters and where they should be positions -- Cal Ripken was noted for his positioning as a shortstop and considered a decent defensive shortstop despite not having great range.

[pclayton]

Elianna, on Oct 10 2008, 08:20 PM, said:

The manager of a baseball team does not tell the pitcher which pitch to throw at which batter.

This came out funny. It sounds like you meant which to throw AT the batter rather than TO the batter. I would say a four seam fastball that breaks up and in thrown at a players head is a lot more effective than a breaking ball.

It depends on the manager, but usually the pitching coach will have a lot to say about what to pitch to a particular batter.