Trivial note - 2005 WS ties for closest sweep ever

Aren't you the guy who bet me that Bagwell would get 90 RBIs this year? Doesn't say much for your objectivity, does it?

 

Regardless of your perception of my objectivity or lack thereof, your statement that the Astros lack character is ridiculous based on the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

 

I'm sure that most of the Astros are people of strong moral fiber and I'm not questioning whether they are nice guys.

However, I don't think that the Sox had soooo much more talent than the Astros that a sweep is forgivable. The fact is that the Astros had lots of opportunities in every game to put the Sox away, but they could never make the clutch hit, pitch, or even sac fly. Yeah, it was a great run to get to the World Series, but there's no denying that, in the end, when it counted most, the team choked. You could call that a lack of character or a lack of nerve or whatever. But what is ridiculous is to deny that it isn't there. A total homer like you might say that the Astros went down fighting, but they were actually pretty meek and a sweep was the result.

 

Here's a good read:

http://www.all-baseball.com/archives/020935.html

The Closest Sweep Ever?
by ruz
When the White Sox beat the Astros last night, they became either the 17th or the 19th team to win a World Series in a four-game sweep. I say “17th or 19th” because on two previous occasions a team won the World Series in five games, with one of the games ending in a tie. Count them if you want (I did).

History will remember the White Sox as a dominant team in the World Series, and that is, de facto, true. Also true, though, is the fact that this turned out to be the closest World Series sweep ever.

The White Sox outscored Houston 20-14 (5-3, 7-6, 7-5, 1-0) in the Series. The run differential of 6 ties the lowest differential in a sweep, accomplished by the 1950 Yankees, who outscored the Philadelphia Phillies 11-5 (1-0, 2-1, 3-2, 5-2). Only two other Series came close:

* In 1922, the Giants outscored the Yankees 18-11 in one of the five-game sweeps (3-2, 3-3, 3-0, 4-3, 5-3).
* The 1963 Dodgers beat the Yankees in four straight, outscoring them 12-4 (5-2, 4-1, 1-0, 2-1).

(By the way, that is not a record for fewest runs scored in a World Series; that honor belongs to the 1966 Dodgers, who scored a total of 2 runs while being swept by the Orioles.)

On the other end of the scale, the largest margin of defeat in a World Series sweep is 18, and it’s happened twice: the 1932 Yankees put the beat down on the Cubs (12-6, 5-2, 7-5, 13-6), and 57 years later the A’s outlasted the Loma Prieta earthquake to embarass the Giants (5-0, 5-1, 13-7, 9-6).

So at first glance the 2005 Series appears to match the closeness of the 1950 Classic. By two other measures, though, the just-completed series was tighter.

First, the White Sox won two games by one run and two games by two runs, while the Yankees won three games by one run but one game by three runs. Game 4 of that Series, won 5-2, saw the Yankees jump out to a 2-0 lead in the first and add on three more runs in the 6th before the Phillies scored two in the 9th. The game was never in doubt.

Second, the 2005 Series was consistently closer than the 1950 Series. There were 81 half-innings of baseball in this World Series (actually, just a little bit under 81, thanks to Podsednik’s walk-off homer in game two):

Half-innings ending with the score tied: 38 (47%)
Half-innings ending with a team one run ahead: 27 (33%)
Half-innings ending with a team two runs ahead: 13 (16%)
Half-innings ending with a team three or more runs ahead: 3 (4%)

A similar chart for the 1950 series, which had 73 half-innings:

Half-innings ending with the score tied: 27 (37%)
Half-innings ending with a team one run ahead: 30 (41%)
Half-innings ending with a team two runs ahead: 10 (14%)
Half-innings ending with a team three or more runs ahead: 6 (8%)

It’s close, but the 2005 Series had a higher percentage of closer innings than the 1950 series did, again mostly thanks to Game 4 of the ‘50 Series.

Obviously, in a close series, eveything is magnified, every inability to execute looms large, every small thing takes on epic proportions. “Close” usually means “competitive,” and “competitive” usually means “exciting.” Congratulations to the White Sox for being able to to do the litle things they needed to do, four times in a row, giving them their first title in 88 years and giving us one of the most exciting Series in a long time.

 

There is such a thing as the "closest sweep?"

 

I assumed you were addressing character during the heat of the moment, as in dealing with tough circumstances, as opposed to "moral fiber". This indeed is what I addressed as well.

I'm sure the Astros are losing sleep that you're not granting clemency.

Perhaps the performance by the Sox in those key moments was "clutch"? Which is it? Did the Sox "clutch", or did the Astros "choke"? Because, by definition, it can't be both. You see, "choke" and "clutch" are BS figments of the fan's imagination--trying to explain something the fan has never experienced.

Yet people are b****ing. The Astros are the reigning NL Champions. Does that count? The best team in the Major Leagues this year was the St. Louis Cardinals. Did they "choke"?

Ridiculous? What are you saying about the White Sox? That they were a bunch of weak patsies that were rolling over and the Astros lost anyway? Your take is the one that is ridiculous.

Thanks for the insult. I'll file that away. And, if Bagwell were healthy, he *would* have garnered 90 RBIs. For evidence, check his career.

 

And if pig had wings they *would* fly. Truly, your logic astounds me. Anyway, Bagwell's shoulder was deteriorating well before this season and well before you made the claim that he'd reach 90, so it was still foolish for you to assume that he'd remain healthy throughout.

You are right that "clutch" and "choke" can be hard to define. But check out Richard Justice's blog today:

• The Astros went hitless in their final 29 at-bats with runners on base in the World Series. Jason Lane's eighth-inning double in Game 3 was the last one.
• The only team to have a longer drought with men on base in one World Series was the 1966 Dodgers, who had an 0 for 31 slump.
• The Astros overall batted .203 and hit three home runs during the World Series.
• Morgan Ensberg was 1 for 10 with runners in scoring position during the World Series.
• Adam Everett was 0 for 15 with runners in scoring position during the entire playoffs.
• Craig Biggio was 3 for 14 with runners in scoring position during the playoffs.

To me, all of that says "choke". But feel free to disagree and defend the team ad nauseum, as you are wont to do.

 

Touché. I concede to you on this point.

Everything beneath just lost a lot of credibility. Richard Justice writes 5% great stuff and 95% drivel. But, I'll read on...

Ah, just stats I was already aware of.

So you still haven't addressed the question (other than a weak attempt to write it off above): what if it was the Sox who "clutched"? Lemme rewrite Justice's drivel in order to illustrate the point:

• The Sox pitching staff held the Astros hitless in their final 29 at-bats with runners on base in the World Series. Jason Lane's eighth-inning double in Game 3 was the last one they allowed.
• The only pitching staff to dominate a team more heavily was the 1966 Orioles, who held the Dodgers to an 0-for-31 drought with runners on base.
• The Sox had an impressive .203 average against, yielding only three home runs, during the World Series.
• The Sox minimized two of the Astros' best regular season threats, Morgan Ensberg and Craig Biggio, to 1 for 10 with runners in scoring position and 3 for 14 with runners in scoring position respectively.

If you're nauseated, why are you still reading? Take some antacid, get out and enjoy the great weather. I never said the team performed greatly in the WS; I said they were beat by a team who performed better. You can label that and insult it all you like, but it doesn't help your arguments.