Chron: Not trading Lidge, Vote o Confidence for Purp and Gar

cat, the braves are holding on line 2...

well, a) you have no way of predicting the outcome, especially given that palmiero was 2/12 in that postseason (taveras was 15/43); b) even if it was the right move, garner not making it wasn't a component of "luck" - its poor management.

the white sox were the best team in baseball that october.

 

What upsets me is if we sweep the Pirates, Drayton will think that the team has turned a corner or something.

 

Yes they were indeed, mullets and all. My favorite team was the second best team in baseball that October, and the best in the NL.

 

Sorry, second-best. Still don't think that's a terrible indictment on Drayton.

Hit numbers are irrelevant, especially with that small of a sample. That situation didn't call for a base hit. It simply called to make contact. Fly ball to the outfield, slow dribbler, whatever. Any contact had a greater chance than not of producing the winning run. The best percentage play would've been to put in the contact hitter in place of a rookie without sound strike zone judgment. Instead, Taveras swung out of the zone at least once, never made contact, and that was that.

The White Sox were the best team in baseball that October, absolutely. Just like the Cardinals were the best team in baseball last October. It's a matter of catching fire at the right time and executing in the biggest moments, which for the most part is luck. It's not something you can prepare for. The only thing management has full control over is to assemble a team to play well over 162 games, make the playoffs, and from there hope for the best.

 

Every championship series in any sport depends on execution and timeliness and many games depend on one or two plays as you have described here.

So Michael Jordan was lucky to win the championships because John Paxson or Steve Kerr hit those game winning shots? So Kobe and Shaq were lucky to win because Robert Horry or Derrick Fisher hit 3 pointers down the stretch?

We were lucky because if Nick Anderson made those free throws the whole series wouldve changed. We weren't just better than Orlando?

Baseball, basketball, football, all change on 1 or 2 plays.

You can extrapolate that to any sport in any championship game or anything in life. If you only answered 2 more questions correctly, you wouldve gotten an "A". if you wouldve only answered the interview question this way, you wouldve gotten the job.

They're just excuses.

 

The problem with that logic is that you're assuming the rate of chance stays relatively level across all sports. It doesn't. Baseball is an inherently more random and flukish game than basketball or football; that's why they play 162 games as opposed to 82 or 16. It takes longer to make accurate judgments as to the caliber of a team and/or player than it does in other sports. Yet, despite the difference in regular season, the postseason series length is the same. This leads to an increased emphasis on luck in deciding baseball winners as opposed to other sports. As a result, most baseball teams are built for the regular season, whereas more emphasis is put on building a team specifically for the postseason in basketball and football.

 

Baseball and basketball may be the same but football certainly isn't. You win 1 game and that's it. A one-game-winner-takes all increases the opportunity that one play will decide the game.

Basketball championships are even more often determined by one goal here or a traveling call there. They are inherently much closer games in the championships because teams score back and forth and an extra basket out of a hundred determines the winner

The Lakers-Celtics, Celtics-Pistons, Bulls-Pistons, Bulls-Suns, Bulls-Jazz, Rockets-Knicks, Mavericks-Heat, Lakers-Spurs, Pistons-Spurs, Suns-Spurs, etc etc etc. Almost every one of those series was back and forth and a tip in here, a no-call there, a 3 pointer in the closing seconds (luck or better execution) made the difference.

It's not like we lost to the Whitesox 4 straight games because of a walk-off double or a 9th inning strikeout with the bases loaded.

 

No...we lost to the Sox in 4 games because our offense was a little anemic and Clemens got hurt in his first start in the series.

 

we lost because our starting pitching, that had carried us, didn't carry us. and because our bullpen which had been solid all season let us down. they got away from the formula that won them games, despite their "anemic" offense all 2005.

oswalt didn't have a good start...clemens didn't either. backe was the only starter who truly pitched really well.

 

That is true. I specifically mentioned Clemens because all through the playoffs, from the 17th inning against Atlanta on...it seemed like when our backs were against the wall, we'd just turn to Rocket and all was well. When he got hurt, we lost our proverbial binkie.

 

Yes, Roger pitched well in extra innings against the Braves... but all that served to do was to nullify his HORRIBLE start in game 2 in Atlanta.
He was also in a position to do that since he didn't pitch that much in his previous start.

He did win game 3 against the Cardinals.... the only start of the playoffs he got a W in. And then he got hurt in game 1 against the White Sox, and wasn't scheduled to start again till game 5.

Maybe you lost your binkie... but I wouldn't say that's the reason why the Astros got swept. Everybody also seems to forget them playing pretty damn well in game 2, in a game that should have been postponed due to horrid weather, until Qualls gives up a first pitch grand slam.

 

Just a note: I'd fire Purpura and Garner tomorrow.

 

No, we lost in four games becasue Chad Qualls blew game 2. That game was ours. Series should of been tied 1-1. Then Roy O. blew game 3. 4-0 lead and he gave it right back. Astros should of been up 2-1. Then game 4, our offense blew that. We had bases loaded in the sixth inning and Jason Lane killed us. Base hit and the Astros lead the series 3-1.