2010 World Series: Texas Rangers vs San Francisco Giants

San Francisco get home field.

i really didn't think these two teams would be here but here we are.

shouldnt this be a poll

too late, sorry

give predictions anyways!

Angels in 7.

haha, not that nightmare again

http://nbchardballtalk.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/nolan-ryan-george-bush-alcs-game-1-e1287200125618.jpg

rangers 6

phil hughes was a gift to both the rangers & the giants this year

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/boxscore.jsp?gid=2010_07_13_nasmlb_aasmlb_1

Hughes, P(H, 1)(L, 0-1)

ya - normally i'd say it's gotta be the rangers. but things aren't going as they should.

Giants in six

Lincecum
Cain
J. Sanchez
Bumgarner
Lincecum
Cain

Sanchez

Rangers in 5.

But I'm rooting for the Giants.

I don't know Bee, how many times are we facing Lee?

he will always pitch against Lincecum, will take that chance

Dude has been unconscious! Timmy'd better have some more 14 K games under his belt to have a chance.

it's baseball, you really have no idea what is going to happen

1958 is a long time ago and has never happened in San Francisco

so excited about the possibilities

the beisbol giants

I think it's the Giants' year. Lee is being talked about like he's Bob Gibson or Tom Seaver, and maybe he'll keep it going; Lincecum is the better pitcher, though. I hope Sorry, Doc can stay hot. For no reason other than a hunch, I have a feeling that most of the games will be high scoring. Giants in 7.

2010 WORLD SERIES: MOLINAS REVENGE

Lincecum is the better pitcher, though.

you say this like it's clear cut

Hey, apparently Bengie is guaranteed to get a WS ring.

again, can I say steers vs queers or is that uncouth

QUEERS over STEERS IN 6

I'm still saying 2-1 that Devendra sings in SF

i'd say giants have slightly better pitching but rangers have a significantly better offense

rangers in 6

you say this like it's clear cut

Okay--I think Lincecum's better, and I think a comparison of their whole careers would bear that out. But you're right, I have no single metric to prove it.

(Just out of curiosity, how is that it's okay to say you know RBI don't matter much around here, and it's okay to say you know momentum's not real, but saying that a 26-year-old, two-time Cy Young winner is better than a 32-year old, one-time winner who happens to be hot requires a qualifier?)

i've never said those things

That wasn't directed at you specifically--sorry if it came off that way. It was a more general statement: that what you can say you know on this board without raising an eyebrow, and what requires that you attach a qualifier, would seem to depend on who's doing the saying.

well uh let me put it this way--i'm not gonna call out folks who have already proven to be stubborn and intractable.

lincecum is younger and has had the better career for sure--but both guys at their best, talent against talent, i'd really think about taking lee.

i'm not gonna call out folks who have already proven to be stubborn and intractable.

Thank you, many times over. I was starting to develop a bit of a persecution complex around here.

Right now, you could be right. Especially as Lincecum was not at his best against the Phillies.

what an intriguing series!

Yankess and Phils getting knocked out is a great consolation prize for losing the Braves early. Hopefully roomfuls of Fox execs are wailing and rending their garments at the ratings hit they'll take.

Rooting Rangers and picking Rangers, even though the idea of Frenchy getting a ring before Brian McCann makes me burp acid a little.

I don't know much about markets, but do S.F. and Texas count as medium? I'm wondering if all the other attractions about this series--number-one, two longtime franchises who've never won (city-wise for the Giants) a Series, and number-two, that they're both colourful underdog teams--might counteract some of the market considerations. If it's a close series that goes 6 or 7, I could see some pretty good audiences towards the end.

I don't think I've genuinely liked both WS teams since 2002.

All this "torture" stuff is making me swing toward the Rangers.

they're both upper-medium, I think xp

http://www.tvb.org/rcentral/markettrack/us_hh_by_dma.asp

I'm wondering if all the other attractions about this series--number-one, two longtime franchises who've never won (city-wise for the Giants) a Series, and number-two, that they're both colourful underdog teams--might counteract some of the market considerations. If it's a close series that goes 6 or 7, I could see some pretty good audiences towards the end.

World Series TV ratings since 1984:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series_television_ratings

This year's WS compares well with 1997 (Cleveland vs Florida): two underdog teams advancing to the WS (and knocking off the WS teams from the previous year!), one team hadn't won a championship in 50 years, and the other team was there for the first time. The ratings were horrible. And you can't blame this one on post-strike apathy, because the ratings in 1995-6 were about as good as those in 1992-3 (although 1992-3 had low ratings compared to earlier years in part because the Blue Jays were involved).

Cleveland and Miami are smaller markets than the Bay Area and Dallas-Ft. Worth though.

wow had no idea baseball's audience had sunk so low since the 80s

and yet i read recently that baseball was -- by one metric or another -- still solidly the no. 2 sport in the nation (behind the nfl and, surprisingly to me, ahead of the nba).

I'm engaging in some wishful thinking, I know.

I get the feeling that '91 was a pivotal year--maybe the last time when a great Series equalled great ratings, regardless of who was involved. (I know Minnesota was small-market; not sure where the Braves sat then, but it was their first winning year in a while.) People have Glee and Blackberrys now to occupy their time. (And, um, message boards!)

As a dodger fan I am so conflicted.

xpost yeah, the World Series has drawn higher ratings than the NBA finals in every year except for 1998 (Bulls vs Jazz II).

I think you're right about the 1991 WS -- viewership was low at the start of the series but grew steadily once people undoubtedly heard about what a great series it was, and had nearly doubled by Game 7. The point of no return seemed to happen when FOX took over in 2000, perhaps because a) people got tired of seeing the Yankees every year, and b) FOX assumed that the answer to a) was to hype the Yankees (and Red Sox) even more. And they were surprised when nobody cared about Cards vs Tigers!

the idea of Frenchy getting a ring before Brian McCann makes me burp acid a little

"Players with rings" is the worst metric of all. Fuckouer is 3-for-18 in the tournament so far.

World Series ratings shrinkage is all about audience fragmentation through available TV channels mushrooming via cable. Most of those extra folks in the old days watched because nothing else was on. It's always been about about capturing the "casual fan," ie people who can't name anyone but star players at best (this is why we have Buck and McCarver); so no one need worry about these "horrible" ratings except TV execs.

have nfl ratings dropped over the same period?

or maybe "average ratings of all shows" rather than nfl is a fairer comparison.

"Players with rings" is the worst metric of all.

oh god, just eat shit why don't you.

no, I'm busily campaigning to put Luis Sojo and his 4 rings in Cooperstown. I'll eat shit later.

(also funny statement from fan of the 1-time world champions?)

haw right, right

http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2010/11/04/hugo-chavez-to-edgar-renteria-we-beat-bushs-team/

was hoping to find Keith Hernandez among the angry commenters

WS MVP Renteria's team option is declined.

ouch

but sounds like he's planning to retire anyway

In fairness it was $10.5M and Edgar and bear in mind spent 3 separate trips to the DL in 2010. Maybe they'll be able to workout a sweetheart deal.

or as with Ray Knight and the '86 Mets, know when to cut bait

If they can get him for a million or two for one year it wouldn't be a bad idea. They don't have any depth at the position.

So if you haven't followed along on "We proved Moneyball's a bunch of garbage..."

http://bloguin.com/articles/baseball/did-giants-really-prove-moneyball-wrong.html

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/chat/chat.php?chatId=786

I feel very, very sorry for someone who, in celebration of winning a freaking World Series, would get off on criticizing something that has nothing to do with their winning a freaking World Series. If anybody who hates Moneyball actually read Moneyball, we wouldn't have these problems. Instead, we get people like Siegle, who hates what he thinks Moneyball represents. The Giants paid like $40 million this year to DeRosa, Zito, and Rowand, who were either left off of their playoff roster, or who didn't contribute a lick. So yes, maybe they proved Moneyball wrong in that they won a World Series while wasting money....

If you really want to see Moneyball proven very wrong, you need to take the focus off San Francisco and shift your attention about 10 miles east across the Bay Bridge.

If anything it only proves that Billy Beane is not necessarily the best example.

I'd love to read a sequel to Moneyball about the Twins.

twins aren't really a moneyball team though, they're almost 100% scouting from what i've heard

rays are a better example and i think Jonah Keri is putting out a book about the building of the 08 team

That's what would make it interesting. How do you compete using traditional methods and succeed despite a routinely small payroll? Obviously their payroll is pretty high now but it would still be worth analyzing.

Thinwall and NoTime could better address this, but my understanding of the Ricciardi era in Toronto is that it was something of a Moneyball experiment. (Or maybe I just have that idea became he came over from Oakland--I don't know.) It it was, the fact that he wasn't very successful wouldn't discredit Moneyball strategies in my mind; it could just mean that Ricciardi wasn't very good at them.

became = because

The whole point of Moneyball is that you search for undervalued commodities. If traditional scouting techniques become underappreciated and you take advantage of that, that is just as Moneyball as taking advantage OBP or fielding metrics or etc.

SF is kinda moneyball in the sense that they picked up a bunch of old vets who came cheap because nobody valued them.. They just got lucky they all had great seasons.

"traditional scouting techniques" isn't what would be undervalued, it would be the weight that scouts place on certain skills/skillsets. traditional scouting in general is always highly valued by every team.

Fair point.

player analysis at the major league level is advanced to the point where i'm pretty sure the 'next moneyball' is going to either be an inefficiency in scouting/development or in identifying injury risk

pretty sure the 'next moneyball' is going to either be an inefficiency in scouting/development

wasn't this the 'previous moneyball'?

SF is kinda moneyball in the sense that they picked up a bunch of old vets who came cheap because nobody valued them.. They just got lucky they all had great seasons.

― mayor jingleberries, Friday, November 5, 2010 3:01 PM (1 hour ago)

kinda operating word here, when you have your 3 highest paid healthy players (~40% of the payroll) either on the bench or off the playoff roster, there's plenty of UNmoneyballing going on as well.

xp not really, prospects were undervalued back during the steroid era but there wasn't any team that make breakthroughs in how to identify or develop good amateur players more successfully which is what i'm talking about

like ID'ing mechanics issues that differentiate between Strasburg-A and Strasburg-B, if I'm reading you right?

xp not really, prospects were undervalued back during the steroid era but there wasn't any team that make breakthroughs in how to identify or develop good amateur players more successfully which is what i'm talking about

― ciderpress, Friday, November 5, 2010 5:02 PM (2 minutes ago)

i challenge you to read Moneyball again because what you're talking about is a major takeaway from one of the first few chapters iirc.

that is, unless you're talking about some other kind of moneyball that isn't related to the book...

not reading moneyball is the new market efficiency

i know that the A's were drafting amateur players with different skillsets than what was valued, but i was talking more about increased understanding of mechanics and how they affect both performance and injury risk. i don't remember that being an element of it but its been a long time since i read the book

chad bradford chapter iirc

the core of moneyball is lying through your teeth at a commission panel claiming you have no chance against big market teams while building a team that can do just that. which chapter was that?

I've been trying to make the case that the Giants shouldn't have been all that surprising. James disagrees:

My analysis is that the Giants had little chance of making the post-season until Johnny Bench showed up unexpectedly in mid-season. Even making the playoffs, they were generally perceived as no better than the 6th-best of the eight teams in the playoffs.

where did Bill James write that?

do you doubt they wd've been sitting home watching w/out Posey?

Posey was absolutely integral to this team's success, no doubt.

He wrote it in the "Ask Bill" section of his website, where he fields about 25 reader questions a week.

I've probably put too much emphasis on their pitching and underrated Posey's importance.

the core of moneyball is lying through your teeth at a commission panel claiming you have no chance against big market teams while building a team that can do just that. which chapter was that?

― sanskrit, Saturday, November 6, 2010 8:19 AM (8 hours ago)

preface/fwd?

thx SS will report back, "luxury tax" in the index produced nothing.

i'm still in disbelief that the Giants are the 2010 World Champions.

should have know it really was special when the Rangers had all sorts of opportunities to score in that very first inning of the first game of the World Series. the Rangers only came out with one run. a hit up the middle hits Timmy in the leg and only one score. next batter hits a come backer to Timmy and he "forgets" to get the out by chasing the runner back to third. should be two outs but it's only one. next pitch is a double play ball...

xpost it's Chapter Six

Ricciardi's Jays weren't Moneyball at all. When he started, Ricciardi wanted to cut payroll without compromising the quality of the team and he succeeded in doing that. So that's Moneyball, sorta. JP's strengths were in scouting and player development (in the more traditional sense), so if you put the team's stock in that and add a few more pieces via trades and FA signings then you can build a contender, even in the AL East (the Rays have shown that it's possible). Except that JP didn't do that, instead, he blew loads of money on BJ Ryan (the turning point of his tenure, we should have known then that we'd never field a winner under Ricciardi) and Wells' extension.

It's too bad, because he did an excellent job on the scouting/development side -- the core of the pitching staff and guys like Lind and Snider were drafted and developed under his watch.

Okay. I thought that's how his arrival was advertised, and I thought his idea of an undervalued Moneyball player was Lyle Overbay. Thinking about Lyle Overbay, I'm glad I'm wrong.

I'm glad Ricciardi will be answering to Alderson in Queens.

via Neyer:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/gameon/post/2010/11/baseball-speds-up-world-series-games-25-minutes-shorter-than-last-year/1

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/11/07/SPASMUSSENSPORTS.DTL&feed=rss.dasmussen

http://sf.eater.com/uploads/ThePanda.jpg

all aboard the bullet train to Fresno, RIP dude.

not being a fatass wont help his plate discipline.. he hung out with bengie too long.

wont help his plate discipline

So frustrating, swinging at almost every pitch.

was this posted?

http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/3773205.bin?size=620x400

Just after the World Series, Steve Rubio posted a lengthy history of his Giants fandom dating back to the move to San Francisco in '58. I finally printed it out and read it a couple of days ago; highly recommended. It's organized by decades, more or less; here's a link for the last installment (scroll down), and you can work backwards from there.

http://begonias.typepad.com/srubio/2010/11/page/3/

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2010/12/20/ba-championswint_0502729584.jpg

love that so much