WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

Great effort. Bring on the Dodgers. Should be a very fun time the next 1-2 weeks.

Morton and McCullers - what a pitching performance.

What a freaking game!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Astros and Dodgers both tore out of the gates and then hit some extremely rough patches during the season. Frankly, I thought that Cleveland was going to cruise through the AL playoffs, and I also thought the NL playoff field was maybe too stout for the Dodgers.

But the Dodgers have completely returned to form (that is what healthy super-elite pitching will do for you), and the Astros had just enough pitching to survive. (Side note: Everyone else in the AL was extremely fortunate that the Indians lost Encarnacion right as the playoffs started.)

The World Series participants are both very worthy. But when it is great pitching versus just "eh" pitching, you have to ignore everything else and go with the former. Dodgers in six.

That said, congrats to the Astros. Congrats to anyone that beats the Yankees (well, except for the Cardinals).

Just "eh" pitching? Really? What does that make the Yankees staff?

(10-21-2017 11:16 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Just "eh" pitching? Really? What does that make the Yankees staff?

You can have great individual pitchers and still have an overall middling staff.

I'm just calling it straight. The Astros gave up 700 runs during the season, though the rate likely went down after Verlander arrived. Still, 700 runs... Mmm.

Great pitching didn't save the Indians, but again, they lost their MVP in the first game of the playoffs. The Astros' bats went quiet against the Yankees; the silence is likely going to be deafening against the Dodgers.

Astros bats were loud enough the last 2 nights.

Maybe the Dodgers win in 6 as you say, but to call the Astros pitching "eh" is just wrong. In the Astros 4 wins in this series, they held the Yankees to 3 runs. If that's "eh", bring it on.

(10-21-2017 11:49 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Astros bats were loud enough the last 2 nights.

Maybe the Dodgers win in 6 as you say, but to call the Astros pitching "eh" is just wrong.

700 runs. Rank-wise, that is not too bad I guess. But when you are going up against a team that has given up 580, that should make you plenty nervous.

I think you're a bit biased; I don't have a dog in this fight. And even if I did, I'd still call it straight.

The Astros remind me of the '82 Brewers: crazy offense (for the time), merely decent pitching. Right before the playoffs, the Brewers lost their trump card in Rollie Fingers, the '81 AL MVP and Cy Young winner. The Brewers then proceeded to lose in seven to the Cardinals, a team that top to bottom could indeed pitch.

Like the Brewers, the Astros are short in the bullpen, and also like the Brewers, they can't trot out four aces to cover that up. I am convinced that the Dodgers will win, and it won't be in seven.

If the Astros had even marginally better pitching overall, I think the outcome would be a toss-up.

And besides, compared to the Dodgers, almost everyone has "eh" pitching, save for maybe Cleveland.

Kershaw, Hill, Wood, Ryu, Darvish, Maeda. Those are just the starters. And Darvish and Maeda have "underperformed."

(10-22-2017 12:08 AM)Wiessman Wrote:  And besides, compared to the Dodgers, almost everyone has "eh" pitching, save for maybe Cleveland.

Kershaw, Hill, Wood, Ryu, Darvish, Maeda. Those are just the starters.

Of course , another way to look at it is that in the Astro's 4 wins, they gave up only 3 runs. You only need 4.

(10-22-2017 12:10 AM)HawaiiOwl Wrote:  

(10-22-2017 12:08 AM)Wiessman Wrote:  And besides, compared to the Dodgers, almost everyone has "eh" pitching, save for maybe Cleveland.

Kershaw, Hill, Wood, Ryu, Darvish, Maeda. Those are just the starters.

Of course , another way to look at it is that in the Astro's 4 wins, they gave up only 3 runs. You only need 4.

Stranger things have happened. We'll see. But I know where my money is going.

So your definition of "eh" is every team except the Dodgers and maybe Cleveland? I'm surprised they are even bothering to play the series.

Look, the Dodgers are good, very good. But the pitchers the Astros are actually using in the post-season are far from "eh".

This Sports Illustrated cover from 2014 is getting some attention. I should point out to be fair to the SI cover jinx that where they got it wrong is the part where they talk about U.S. Soccer's Moment.

(10-22-2017 06:43 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  So your definition of "eh" is every team except the Dodgers and maybe Cleveland? I'm surprised they are even bothering to play the series.

Look, the Dodgers are good, very good. But the pitchers the Astros are actually using in the post-season are far from "eh".

Not team; the pitching staff. And you're just taking exception because you're an Astros fan.

I am engaging in a bit of light hyperbole to get across the point that the Dodgers' staff is truly exceptional, maybe one of the deepest ever. Of course other teams have good to great pitching. But a case like the Dodgers doesn't happen very often, and it makes other teams look a little... lacking in the pitching department.

And I wouldn't put the Astros in the category of even having truly good pitching. The staff is top-heavy. You've got a couple of exceptional starters, maybe two reliable relievers, and then it is a dice roll. That is not deserving of my money, not against the Dodgers.

If the Astros win, I will be out a little scratch. And I will be fine with that. But please, stop getting mildly offended because I am talking sports on a sports board and expressing an opinion about an outcome that you don't like. My goodness.

We're not talking Rice's dire situation here; this is just pro sports, a discussion about two teams that are already doing well. It's just fun to debate it and see who ends up being right.

(10-21-2017 11:57 PM)Wiessman Wrote:  

(10-21-2017 11:49 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Astros bats were loud enough the last 2 nights.
Maybe the Dodgers win in 6 as you say, but to call the Astros pitching "eh" is just wrong.

700 runs. Rank-wise, that is not too bad I guess. But when you are going up against a team that has given up 580, that should make you plenty nervous.
I think you're a bit biased; I don't have a dog in this fight. And even if I did, I'd still call it straight.
The Astros remind me of the '82 Brewers: crazy offense (for the time), merely decent pitching. Right before the playoffs, the Brewers lost their trump card in Rollie Fingers, the '81 AL MVP and Cy Young winner. The Brewers then proceeded to lose in seven to the Cardinals, a team that top to bottom could indeed pitch.
Like the Brewers, the Astros are short in the bullpen, and also like the Brewers, they can't trot out four aces to cover that up. I am convinced that the Dodgers will win, and it won't be in seven.
If the Astros had even marginally better pitching overall, I think the outcome would be a toss-up.

Interestingly, the differential in runs scored (896 to 770) is roughly the same in the opposite direction, so the Astros have a run differential of 196 to the Dodgers' 190. Now statistically a run differential tends to matter more as the number of total runs decreases, and this tends to get magnified in the post-season, particularly with respect to the bullpen. And the Dodgers probably have better 3-4-5 starters. But anything can happen in a short series, and this is a matchup of at worst two of the best three teams in MLB this year, first time since 1970 that two teams with over 100 regular season wins will meet in World Series. And Dodgers were actually under .500, giving up more runs than Astros, in September.

It's not unreasonable to give the Dodgers the upper hand, say Dodgers in 6, but this could very easily go either way. If Dodgers do win, or even if they don't, I hope Astros make off-season moves to get a #2 quality starter to slot at #3 or #4, and a couple more stout bullpen arms, particularly at least one lefty. If Astros had been the ones (instead of the Nats) to make the Madson/Doolittle deal or the ones (instead of the Yanks) to make the Kahnle/Robertson deal (and they certainly have the prospects to have done either) I'd feel better about their chances. But I'd have felt better about their chances going into the playoffs too, and so far so good. As Jim Bowden likes to say, prospects are nice, but parades are nicer. Unfortunately, their bullpen pickup (Liriano) has pretty much bombed. But give them credit for Verlander, and hope for the best.

As an out-of-stater with no stakes in this fight, I think the Dodgers - Astros differential is a bit overstated, especially when talking about the post-season. Yes, the Dodgers have the superior 5-man starting rotation, but in the post-season, you're primarily relying on a 3-man rotation, and there's very little, if any difference, between the top 3 on the two staffs.

No question, the Dodgers have the far superior bullpen, but so too did the Yankees, and we saw how that turned out. And the Astros have the far superior offense, especially if Seager remains out.

Consequently, I'd call it pretty even, with the Dodgers having the slightest of edges because of the extra home game, if needed.

(10-22-2017 08:23 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Now statistically a run differential tends to matter more as the number of total runs decreases, and this tends to get magnified in the post-season, particularly with respect to the bullpen.

Yeah, that's exactly it. I don't value the absolute run differential; runs allowed matters more, especially when the run differential is close to equal.

If the Astros had a significantly greater run differential, then I might feel like their offense could overcome the Dodgers. But that is not the case.

But hey, I'm probably posting on a board with a lot of Astros fans. Tomball seems like a decent enough guy; for his sake, I hope I'm wrong (but I don't think I am). A Dodger win is not that important to me.

(10-22-2017 08:41 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  As an out-of-stater with no stakes in this fight, I think the Dodgers - Astros differential is a bit overstated, especially when talking about the post-season. Yes, the Dodgers have the superior 5-man starting rotation, but in the post-season, you're primarily relying on a 3-man rotation, and there's very little, if any difference, between the top 3 on the two staffs.

No question, the Dodgers have the far superior bullpen, but so too did the Yankees, and we saw how that turned out. And the Astros have the far superior offense, especially if Seager remains out.

Consequently, I'd call it pretty even, with the Dodgers having the slightest of edges because of the extra home game, if needed.

4 man staffs. Tuesday-Wednesday in LA, Friday-Sunday in Houston. I doubt either team goes to a 3-man staff, they'll stick with 4-man starting rotations. You might have a game 1 starter come out of the pen in game 7 if it gets there.

It will be interesting to see if there are any changes to the roster between the LCS and World Series. The Dodgers handled the loss of Corey Seager pretty well in the NLCS but he may be back now for the World Series. As far as the Astros go, with 3 of LA's 4 starters being lefties, they might want to get an extra right handed bat on the bench so I might change out Tyler White and Derek Fisher (Fisher was on ALDS and ALCS roster but didn't have an at-bat in either series).

The big reason I give LA an edge is they have home field advantage. Houston is 6-0 at home this postseason but just 1-4 on the road. And of course, Houston will have no DH in LA, which could force them to go to the pen a bit sooner.