Letters to the Editor
-
Eep!
Yikes, that was an amazing game! I'll take a Cardinals victory over an amazing game any day, but tonight I got both! Great pitching, amazing fielding (on the wrong side), a home run from an unlikely player, and a very tense 9th inning ending in a strikeout!
Sure, maybe we'll fall to the feel-good we've-sucked-forever-until-now-that-we're-playing-your-team juggernaut like in 2004. However, one fact gives me hope, and that's that even in their darkest hours against the Mets the Cardinals almost always scored in the inning immediately after the Mets scored. A team that can do that is one that won't give up, even when they're overmatched.
After all, if we knew the outcome in advance, why play the games?
-
Game 7
What fun! I had no idea what was going on, having been flying from SF to Dulles through the evening. When I finally got my rental car around 10 pm, the first thing I did was find the game, tied at that point, just as the Mets loaded the bases and couldn't pull the trigger. I actually made it to my hotel in time to watch the end, and as someone who really doesn't have a dog in that fight, couldn't have been happier for the great baseball!
A couple of nits to pick: First, you say that Beltran hadn't "been too hard" on the Cardinals this time. I know in a short series you can get Polanco hitting .500+, so by those standards, you're right, of course. But .318 with 2 dingers ain't nothin' to sneeze at (using my best John Kruk voice here).
And, subjectivity aside, it was Joe Rudi, not Rudy, on those boys in green & gold all those years ago. But you knew that.
Love reading your column--I try to save it for a treat after the heavy news, but more often than not, I just can't resist going straight to it. Keep it up!
-
That catch!
-
The next inning
Atiya: However, one fact gives me hope, and that's that even in their darkest hours against the Mets the Cardinals almost always scored in the inning immediately after the Mets scored.
I was intrigued by this and couldn't help looking it up to see if this was just an impression. It wasn't.
The Mets scored in 14 different innings. The Cardinals scored in their next half-inning eight times. That's a lot. And it seemed like more than that because they went 0-for-3 in Game 6 and threw a shutout in Game 3, so in the other five games, they scored in 8-of-11 innings following a score.
Unless I'm mistaken, big-league teams score in roughly 30 percent of their innings, on average. Over the whole series, the Cardinals scored in 16 of 61, or 26 percent, and the Mets in 14 of 62, or 23 percent. So 57 percent is a lot.
Now, I don't know if it means anything. Could it just have been a coincidence? If not, that suggests the Cardinals can choose which innings they score in, that they have significant control over it. If that's the case, then there's an obvious need for the Cardinals to improve in innings following an inning when the opponent didn't score. They were only 8-for-47 in those innings, 17 percent.
If they could just approach those innings with the same attitude they approached the innings following a score, they'd have the greatest offense of all time!
- - - -
CPinSF, thanks for the Rudi, er, catch.
-
The Plucky World Series
When Chavez made that catch, I couldn't help but think, "That's it. No team that makes that kind of play should be allowed to lose. That would be inustice on a cosmic scale." But lose the Mets did, and now it's the plucky, never-say-die Cards against the plucky, never-say-die Tigers. Problem is, who to root for? I like 'em both. Nobody remembers in April that these same Detroits were picked as a middling team at best, and that a .500 season would be considered great progress. Likewise, no one remembers the St. Louisians had a commanding lead in the NL Central for a goodly part of the year, only that they almost had an ignominious meltdown near the end.
So here they are, a team we expected to be here in April (the Cards) and a team nobody expected (the Tigers). Of course, October being what it is, the roles are reversed. The Motor City Kitties are the Big Bad Cats, rested and ready to feast on limping and bruised Redbirds. Do I think the Cards will win? Not really. But would it surprise me? Not a bit. I am really looking forward to this matchup, even as the rest of the nation will likely tune out. Which is a shame, because I think it'll be a dilly.
If you were to ask any man on either team whether they can go all the way, he'd likely sum it up in four words: "Why the hell not?"
-
Bounce-back and other Cardinals trends
The Cards ability to keep scoring in the half-innings after their opponents scored--against both the Mets and Padres--is definitely something that stood out to me. Just imagine what the Cards' opponents noticed. As a fan, let's hope the Cards can do like King says and score in every half-inning.
A couple other things worth noting that make me think this World Series won't be such a walk, though I'll gladly admit the Tigers are a much better team than the Redbirds. Rolen looked MUCH better at the plate last night, timing his swing much better. He got a bad beat on the otherworldly Chavez play, but hit the ball well. Pujols has looked bad--well for him--all post-season. The guy homers as much as strikes out (49 to 55 I believe in the regular season), but his discipline has been bad. Maybe he's not seeing the ball, maybe he's trying to do too much, or maybe the hammy is hurting him. But maybe its just a statistical blip. The most amazing, but underreported thing about Pujols, is how consistent he is. It's really weird how his average stays around .330 constantly. No big tears (except for start of this season, but was more than a tear), and no big slumps (except for this postseason). I'm thinking the law of averages will help Pujols look better.
I also still wish LaRussa had gone with the Supp Nazi in Game 6, but whatever.