Today’s news is powered by a baseball “Dirty Job”:
- Yanks to go with a three-man rotation in the ALCS?:
Joe Girardi just did a conference call with the beat writers and said that while the team won’t have its roster/scouting meeting until tomorrow morning, “We are definitely considering going to a three-man rotation in this round.”
Girardi pointed to the lighter workload that CC Sabathia faced in September, as well as the longer layoff he’s getting now since the Yankees swept the first round. Girardi said that the team would like to have plan in place for the rotation going into the series, as opposed to just waiting to see where the team stands when Game 4 rolls around. Remember, too, that because of off-days Sabathia could pitch Games 1, 4 and 7 and only have to pitch on short rest once instead of twice.
- Here are the start times for the ALCS.
- Tom Verducci has some daunting Stadium stats:
. . . it is slightly more advantageous to throw a left-hander against the Yankees at Yankee Stadium, where you have to defend the shorter porch in right field, because you force their switch-hitters to bat from the right side. Right-handed starters got pounded by the Yankees in that ballpark. They were 10-19 there, including 3-14 since June 19. (Left-handed starters were 6-10). Including the postseason start by Nick Blackburn of Minnesota, 28 opposing right-handers have started at Yankee Stadium in the past four months and only three came away with a win: Roy Halladay, Chris Tillman and Kevin Millwood, and in each case they were supported by 10 runs.
Honestly, the Yankees are such a dominant offensive team in that ballpark that it doesn’t matter that much. Here are opponents’ records in games at Yankee Stadium, whether the starter gets the decision or not:
With right-handed starter: 14-37 (.275)
With left-handed starter: 10-20 (.333)But I’d still rather throw a lefty at Yankee Stadium, especially when the right-handed choice, Weaver, is better at home and worse against the Yankees. Remember, Scioscia’s Game 2 starter is also likely to be his starter for Game 6, also to be played at Yankee Stadium — assuming he uses four starters and assuming the Angels can extend the best team in baseball that far.
- You can cast your on-line ballot for the annual Internet Baseball Awards.
- Pat Kelly turns 42 today. Kelly was a part-time 2B on Yankee teams of the early 90s. He never distinguished himself in any particular facet of the game (excepting being a good bunter), compiling a .674 OPS during his time with the Bombers.
- Happy 45th birthday to #27, Manager Joe Girardi.
- Ed Figueroa turns 61 today. “Figgy” was obtained, along with Mickey Rivers, for Bobby Bonds after the ’75 season. He compiled an impressive 62-39 record in his 4+ years with the Bombers. He did however go 0-4 with a 7.47 ERA in seven post-season starts for the Yanks.
- Tom Tresh passed away on this day one year ago, at the age of 70.
- On this date in 1976, Chris Chambliss hits a ninth-inning home run off Mark Littell to give the New York Yankees a 7 – 6 victory over the Kansas City Royals and their first American League pennant since 1964.
[My take: Who can forget the image of Chambliss running around the bases, running over fans, holding his helmet?]
"He did however go 0-4 with a 7.47 ERA in seven post-season starts for the Yanks."
Yikes! That's some kind of ugly.
[1] No one tops George Frazier. In the 1981 World Series, Frazier had the honor of losing three of the four games (still a record, I believe) while posting a 17.18 ERA.
I hope it doesn't rain much on Friday and Saturday.
So I'm listening to Billy Ripken on "Boomer and Carton" (I know, I know...please don't judge me); he's pushing the brilliant idea of a World Series of 7 (if needed) straight games with no off-days at a neutral site.
How does anyone even begin to think that that sounds like a good idea?
Yes to CC for three please. Plus, relative to those splits, it means 3 of their four home Games would be started by lefties (CC in 1 and 7, Andy in 6) if necessary.
[3] yeah, the forecast sucks. cold and wet...
like Damon's bat... but something (hope) tells me he's going to come up big in this series.
[4] Actually, I don't think it's so bad, though I would not be in favor of the idea. But something should be done about the endless off days and the (in my mind) ridiculously long post-season, which has (it seems) created an even greater disconnect between success in the regular season and success in the post-season.
[4] It amazes me when these so-called "knowledgeable" ex-players offer ideas that the owners would never implement, because they don't understand the economics of it.
"Hey, instead of getting your ticket revenue, concessions, parking etc for possibly 4 games, you'll get none! Or you'll have to split it all with your opponent!"*
*caveat - I think its possible that some of the postseason revenue is split in some way, but am not sure and can't look it up now. In any case, that's why the 2-3-2 format will never change - with a best of 7 series in that format, each team is guaranteed at least 2 games' worth of revenue.
[7] I agree -- on balance I don't like the idea of seven straight days, but the current post-season schedule is also ridiculous at the other extreme.
[7, 9] my real problem with it lies with the neutral site.
"Yankees...Dodgers...live from Houston...only on FOX!!!"
[4] Sounds like an awful idea. Baseball is a local sport. Removing the games from the home cities would absolutely kill the excitement level. There is no need to attempt to turn the World Series into some kind of drawn out Super Bowl. Let the NFL have it's mega reality TV show.
[8] Post season revenue is not split among team, but is partially split between the home team and the players. For all required games (first 3 in the ALDS; first 4 in the LCS and WS), the home team owner gets 40% and the players get 60%. For all other games, the home team gets 100%.
its like the idea that (inexplicably) gained traction with some in the media (i.e. Francesa) a few weeks ago about having a play-in game in both league's for the Wild Card.
Which means you have the possibility of a team thats below .500, but in the play-in game by virtue of the fact that they're in second place for the wild card, winning the Wild Card and making it into the playoffs...and this is somehow supposed to help the integrity of pennant races??
One thing I think MLB needs to do is severely disadvantage the Wild Card, both competitively and economically. Toward the former, I would even go so far as having the number 1 seed start with 1 win. Toward the latter, I would make all of the games at the number 1 seed's home ball park, and only give the wild card a percentage of game 4, if it is played.
[4] ???
wtf?
What reasons does he give?
[14] i don't necessarily like the idea that the wild card is essentially the same as the divsion winner with the worse record, but i too don't know a logical way to fix this.
part of the problem for me is that the wild card team cannot play a team from its own division in the first round - this can occasionally throw things off from a fair perspective.
maybe the wild card should only get game 4 at home
[14] Good ideas. I'd be on board with that.
anyone know when they went to this pre-schedule format - that is the lcs's and ws are already set regardless of when the lds's finish
[16] I like William's one-game advantage. There should be some HUGE reward for actually having a better season or penalty for being some piddling upstart.
[18] I don't know about that jazz, but I can tell you I want fucking baseball!!! This is crazy!
[19] what if the wild card is the second best team in the al, which is often the case with the yanks/red sox in recent years and the central often being a pile of crap and the west seemingly entrirely dependent on how good the angels are?
[25] haha amen weeping it is utter bullshit!!
and whose idea was it to schedule the alcs at 4pm monday - make those pansy nl teams play then -
[22] oh man [22] was for [20] - no idea how i got to 25
[14] Again, that's something that no owner would ever go for - you'd be taking away the 1 game of value the wild card (and the #3 seed) get. Not to mention screwing over the wild card, and the #3 seed's, local fans.
Why would owners agree to that? I suppose it appeals to their greed . . .
For me, I'd go back to 2 divisions in each league, with a wild card from each division. The wild card from the east plays the division winner from the west, and the wild card from the west plays the division winner from the east.
Or if we're really concerned about the advantages the wild card team might get - get rid of them all together!
I'd be on board with that.
Is anyone else having a feeling of deja vu - I feel like we've had this discussion during a boring part of some October past.
As for the scheduling, MLB wants things to start on a weekend, because weekend start = higher ratings. Follow the money, and things make sense!
[4] It will never happen unless the players and owners split the revenues. Frankly, I think the team with the best record deserves home-field advantage. We, as fans who support the organizations, deserve to attend our beloved teams. It's about entertainment, no?
On the other hand, it would be nice to see the wild card teams have to work a little harder for the honor of playing in the post season, but I don't know what that looks like.
Having been to my fair share of freezing post season games, it would be great not to extend the season until Frosty the Snowman makes an appearance.
One last thing, can we all file a petition sending Chip Caray packing? Boy oh boy, as if ESPN and FOX weren't bad enough!
[25] but ratings have gone down ,even from the 90s, i realize there are multiple variables, but for the casual fan, the long break between series and games is probably not beneficial
Follow the money, and things make sense!
It leads everywhere. Get out your notebook. There's more.
[21] Because MLB has choosen to go with unbalanced schedules, I think you have to look at the division winners as separate entities. After all, it could be that a WC with a better record is more the product of weak division than a superior team. Having said that, you will run into situations where the WC is a "better" team, but as long as MLB goes with a divisional format, I think they should still be penalized for not winning theirs.
[24] You lost me? The format would not impact the #2 vs. #3 series, only the #1 seed vs. the WC (which could now play the winner from their division).
[25] You can't get rid of the WC because it is popular and does keep fans interested longer into the season. Even with a heavy handicap, I still think fans would remain interested in the wild card race. The benefit is you keep what is good about he current setup, but enhance the integrity of having the best record among division winners.
Also, I don't MLB prefers weekend starts...if anything, Friday and Saturday are usually lower rated than days like Thursday and Sunday. The reason you have to hold off on the start of each series is twofold: (1) to allow for as much future planning as possible; and (2) prevent one league from finishing their playoff long before the other.
[27] Ratings have declined (actually, they are up this year) because of the expanding television landscape. Because MLB is a local game, and has not tried to ride the coattails of gambling, even its post season games will struggle to produce ratings on a national scale. I don't see anything wrong with that.
[30] i agree - there are multiple reasons for the ratings being down in previous years, though as you say they are up this year, and i also don't think it is a big deal that national numbers may wane.
my main point is i don't think spreading the games out the way they are is good for ratings and it certainly isn't better for baseball - all this time off is not baseball - it is just easier to schedule travel
[27, 29, 30] I personally prefer a weekend start only because I always found that Friday night/Saturday afternoon leading into first pitch of Game 1 a fun little time of anticipation...but I understand the rationale of moving it to mid-week.
As far as the national ratings are concerned, who the hell knows? Bud always tells us how they're having their "best year ever" and Nielsen is the most unreliable thing ever...but no one seems to be going out of business so I guess they're doing ok.
In regards to riding the coattails of gambling, I think that has more to do with the fact that football more naturally lends itself to wagering for a variety of reasons.
[31] The main reason they are up this year is probably because the Yankees are back in them.
I don't think the extra days off impact the ratings too much, especially when you consider only the ALDS series #1 had the on-off rotation. The standard was to always have an off day between travel days, so this year's ALCS only has one extra day off.
[32] TBS' ratings were up considerably over last season, but the more important indicator is probably how the regional sports networks did. I believe 1/2 were up and 1/2 were down, almost entirely based on how the team performed.
As for the gambling, while the NFL is naturally more condusive to gambling, things like being required to announce your injuries strike me as a subtle way of appeasing the bettor.
anyone know when they went to this pre-schedule format – that is the lcs’s and ws are already set regardless of when the lds’s finish
I think it has always been that way, since the playoffs started.
The only reason we have so many off days is because of the 3 sweeps.
[34] A quick glance at playoff schedules seems to confirm that the only off days are the scheduled travel days, if a series (LDS or LCS) goes the full 5 or 7 games.
[35] The LCS have an extra off day thrown in between games 4 and 5.
[36] This year, or most years? I wasn't clear in [35], I was referring to playoff schedules since 1969.
[37] This is the first time I remember them adding the extra off day in the LCS.