Cubs vs Indians I-WS-T

[Lefty Specialist]

I loved Kris Bryant's smile when he fielded that ball for the final out. You don't normally see players showing emotion while the play is going on.

Just an amazing game, with a million twists and turns packed into it. Coming back from a 5-1 deficit to tie. Two runners scoring on a wild pitch. A tying home run off an elite closer by the last guy you'd expect. Extra innings. A rain delay. A home run by a guy playing his final game. Scoring two in the top of the tenth and having to hang on for dear life.

Just, wow. And good for the Cubbies. Now sign Cespedes, Metsies.

[Frayed Knot]

Chad Ochoseis wrote: That wild pitch in the 5th that scored two runs...I only saw part of the field and had no idea what happened. I'll still have to try to find a replay of it to understand it.

The pitch hopped up and struck Ross flush in the mask which, when combined with him getting his feet tangled under him, knocked him back on his ass. So between it taking him a sec to recover and get up added to the direction and distance the ricochet, it simply wound up taking the Cubs too long to go fetch the ball.
And of course good aggressive running by Kipnis.

[MFS62]

An exciting ending to an exciting series.
It will forever be a case study on how to overmanage a bullpen.

Now, to all you long suffering Cubs fans:
You can stop whining now. SHUT THE FUCK UP.

Later

[Lefty Specialist]

I think both managers fell in love with the idea of, "Hey, he's been good. There's no tomorrow. Let's push him until his arm falls off." Game 7 showed the limits of that theory.

[Centerfield]

If ever there was a manager that deserved to lose, it was Joe Maddon.

It's been less than 9 hours since the Cubs won and they're already too smug for me.

[Frayed Knot]

Maddon in particular seemed to get very picky about which relievers he used.

Travis Wood (L) & Pedro Strop ® appeared in 77 & 54 games during the season and both pitched to sub-3.00 ERAs and low WHiPs - but then both seemed to be left by the side of the road the deeper into post-season they got.
Strop pitched all of 2 innings in the WS spread across 3 games and mostly in mop-up duty even though he gave up just 1 hit and 1 walk. Wood totaled 1.2 IP, also in 3 different games, and allowed a single run.
But then somehow neither of these guys were to be trusted in Game 6 until the 5-run lead with two innings to go became a 7-run lead with one inning left. And then in game 7 he went first to Lester even if it meant swapping out his starting catcher (although Ross then HR'd so that turned out OK) and then going to the whip with Chapman before eventually being forced into rookie Carl Edwards and his grand total of 40 ML innings to close it out.

Not sure if that's over-managing or under-managing ... but it's certainly interesting managing.

[HahnSolo]

I got too wired/tired to post after a while last night.

Two things on last night and one on the series in general:
1. I scratched my head at subbing out Coco Crisp with the bases loaded. I understand trying to get an arm out there to cut down the potential go-ahead run, but boy if I'm the Cubs I'm glad I didn't see that guy come up as the winning run in the 10th.
2. Guyer gave them some really good ABs. He did more in 3 PAs than Chisenhall did all series.

3. This was the third game of the series where the home plate umpire was bad. So bad that my kid noticed. We can't have shitty umps in the showcase event of the sport.

[Centerfield]

Frayed Knot wrote: Maddon in particular seemed to get very picky about which relievers he used. Travis Wood (L) & Pedro Strop (R) appeared in 77 & 54 games during the season and both pitched to sub-3.00 ERAs and low WHiPs - but then both seemed to be left by the side of the road the deeper into post-season they got. Strop pitched all of 2 innings in the WS spread across 3 games and mostly in mop-up duty even though he gave up just 1 hit and 1 walk. Wood totaled 1.2 IP, also in 3 different games, and allowed a single run. But then somehow neither of these guys were to be trusted in Game 6 until the 5-run lead with two innings to go became a 7-run lead with one inning left. And then in game 7 he went first to Lester even if it meant swapping out his starting catcher (although Ross then HR'd so that turned out OK) and then going to the whip with Chapman before eventually being forced into rookie Carl Edwards and his grand total of 40 ML innings to close it out. Not sure if that's over-managing or under-managing ... but it's certainly interesting managing.

The most "interesting" move was pulling Hendricks when he was cruising with 2 outs in the fifth. To put in Lester, the guy who can't hold runners, with a runner on.

It is a terrible move to pull a terrific starter, who is cruising, has plenty left in the tank, to go to your bullpen which is a starter on short rest, a closer who is worn down, and a bunch of guys you don't trust.

And now we're going to have to see his smug face and listen to idiots blab about how smart he is. Annoying.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Chad Ochoseis wrote: Ah, what if? What if Jose Ramirez hadn't gotten himself picked off in the second in front of Chisenhall's single? What if Terry had seen that Kluber didn't have it (even his outs were hard, and he was lucky that Schwarber ran the Cubs out of the third inning) and brought in Miller sooner. Or taken a flyer on Salazar or Merritt? What if he'd pinch hit Naquin instead of Gomes for Perez in the 8th? What if there hadn't been a rain delay screwing with Shaw's momentum? Well, what the hell. It was the most exciting game I've ever seen. It would have been an exciting game if it were a mid-May game between the Angels and the Rays, and not Game 7 of the WS. First post-season game I've ever attended in my life. Though right now, I feel like crap. I yelled more than somewhat at the game, and afterwards had to make sure my buddy (an actual Indians fan) was OK, and then got to bike home from the ballpark after the sprinkle of rain that you saw on TV turned into a steady pour. The weather, otherwise, was strangely perfect - partly cloudy, mid-sixties, no wind. Worth mentioning because Cleveland doesn't get that kind of weather in November. The Progressive Field scoreboard is the one we wish we had. No ads, giant screen, clear and informative - provides names and uni numbers of every player on the field, plus clear replays, an informative scoreboard, etc., etc. That wild pitch in the 5th that scored two runs...I only saw part of the field and had no idea what happened. I'll still have to try to find a replay of it to understand it. As was noted on the board, the Cubs defense was pretty bad. But they sure can hit. The Cubs fans were generally fine, despite the post I made during the game. There was a group in front of us acting kind of douchy but, to be fair, my friend egged them on (and I'll admit to yelling "Wait till next century" at them after the Rajai Davis home run). But good for the Cubs; they were the best team in the majors this year by any reasonable measure. Thanks, everyone, for indulging my brazen affair with the Indians. Looking forward to watching a Metly WS in 2017.

Great report, totally jelly you got to see it.

I too felt like the Indians really blew it with the stoopit picked-off-first thing, as mentioned above I think the stoopit out-adavancing-on-a-single thing in the 9th inning of Game 6 was also a big mistake. Still and all hats off to Cleveland for overcoming these calamities enough to make it a game till the very end; the Cubs sure didn;t play a perfect game either but they were the better squad.

[Centerfield]

Yeah, hard to argue with that. They were the best team wire to wire. Won a thousand games, were clearly better than every team they matched up against in the post-season.

Sometimes juggernauts like that don't win it all, but I guess we shouldn't be surprised when they do. Still annoying.

[Frayed Knot]

I don't seem to find the Cubs any more annoying than any winner not named the Mets, and certainly not as much as some here seem to. Maybe I'll get there eventually (particularly if this becomes an annual thing which some are acting as if already assured) but I don't now have a problem with them winning this.

That said, a brief listen to 'Mike & Mike' this morning heard them praising the Cubs not just for their youth and talent and Maddon & Theo but for them being mostly 'home grown'.
Let's see now: not Rizzo, not Ross, not Montero, not Lester, not Lackey, not Arrieta, not Fowler, not Heyward, not Chapman, not Strop, not Zobrist, and not Hendrix or Russell either if we're counting organization of origin and not just their first [u:nqzfqlvw]ML[/u:nqzfqlvw] team.
Having said all that, I don't think it matters really, that there's some kind of right or wrong way to build a club, and their young core that really is home-grown -- Baez, Bryant, Contreras, Schwarber, Almora, Soler (although the jury is still very much out on several of those) -- are certainly a promising bunch. But it's ESPN so I'll give them a pass since this is the only week of the year they pay attention to baseball anyway.

Forget it Jake, it's Bristol, Connecticut.

[Vic Sage]

the fact that the Yanks' run of titles was fueled by their "core four" didn't make them 1 drop more likeable.

But i don't have a problem with the Cubs. Their success cements Theo's legacy, which i think is a good thing. He offers a blueprint (which the Mets have arduously ignored) of taking your lumps to build around a core of talented young position players (rather than pitchers, whose health and success are more unpredictable), where player evaluation is strongly driven by analytics, and then adding key pitchers and relievers via FA or via trade when the team is ready to win. Success is hard to achieve, and harder to maintain, but i like Theo's chances, given the youth of their roster and the resources of the organization.

The Cubs may well be in the way of the Mets for the next decade, so there'll plenty of time to develop a hate for them. But i'm not there yet.

[Edgy MD]

Up until 2016, the Mets had drafted position players first five consecutive years. I don't think it's true that they've ignored building a core of talent there. It's just that the pitching established itself first, for multiple reasons, some tying back to the previous administration, and some reflecting benevolent fortune.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

I have to admit it, part of the reason I was rooting against the Cubs was a desire to share the feeling I experienced of seeing my favorite team absolutely shit the bed in a World Series they went into with a good chance to win. So when they won Game 5 I was really disappointed.

[Frayed Knot]

I look at it this way: the Mets were the last team to knock the Chicago out of the playoffs during a two year span where the Cubs won 200 regular season games plus another 15 in the post-season.







Baseball Prospectus breaks down the managerial moves during Game 7

[Vic Sage]

Edgy MD wrote: Up until 2016, the Mets had drafted position players first five consecutive years. I don't think it's true that they've ignored building a core of talent there. It's just that the pitching established itself first, for multiple reasons, some tying back to the previous administration, and some reflecting benevolent fortune.

point taken. I retract my unwarranted shot. And maybe Conforto, Nimmo, Smith, Cecchini and Rosario (along with Nido, Evans, Beccera and Lindsay)will be the building blocks for the Mets' future. But none of them are the sort of blue chip prospects that Bryant was, coming up, and i'm not confident in any of them.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Guest

[Centerfield]

Vic Sage wrote: the fact that the Yanks' run of titles was fueled by their "core four" didn't make them 1 drop more likeable. But i don't have a problem with the Cubs. Their success cements Theo's legacy, which i think is a good thing. He offers a blueprint (which the Mets have arduously ignored) of taking your lumps to build around a core of talented young position players (rather than pitchers, whose health and success are more unpredictable), where player evaluation is strongly driven by analytics, and then adding key pitchers and relievers via FA or via trade when the team is ready to win. Success is hard to achieve, and harder to maintain, but i like Theo's chances, given the youth of their roster and the resources of the organization. The Cubs may well be in the way of the Mets for the next decade, so there'll plenty of time to develop a hate for them. But i'm not there yet.

I don't know if I ever made that distinction in terms of position players versus pitchers. I'd have to go back and look at the Boston teams to see how they were put together. But I think unquestionably he has shown us the blueprint of building a core of young, talented, controllable players, then supplementing that core by spending lots of money and acquiring frontline talent via free agency/trade to create a window of excellence, and with a little luck, a World Champion.

The Mets' plan, on the other hand, is to build a core of young, talented, controllable players, then spending just enough money to minimize public backlash, to acquire mid-level talent, to create a window of pretty-goodness, and with lots and lots of luck a World Champion.

(Oh, and of course, we will sign superstar players just so long as they prefer to play here over anywhere else, and leave guaranteed money on the table to play for the Mets.)

[Vic Sage]

oh goody, the Wilpon bashing season has begun!
It's my favorite time of year!

Grab a stick and come on down!

We're not re-signing Cespedes because Fred is a low-down, cheap-ass, corrupt snake-in-the-grass.

Next!

[ashie62]

If the three pitchers don't come back and the FA's to be depart we may be back to square one.

[Vic Sage]

thanks for playing, Ash.

Next!

[Zvon]

Frayed Knot wrote: I look at it this way: the Mets were the last team to knock the Chicago out of the playoffs during a two year span where the Cubs won 200 regular season games plus another 15 in the post-season.

I expect the Cubs will be a force to be reckoned with the next batch of years, but as we all know, the Mets will pwn 'em.
Every team has it's thorn.

Very kool you got to see that live Chad.

HahnSolo wrote: We can't have shitty umps in the showcase event of the sport.

Name 6 great umps (active).
I can't because the umps that suck stand out and make a name for themselves. The best umps who do their job correctly, you barely notice them, let alone learn their names.

[Frayed Knot]

One thing I missed last night was how that Michael Martinez guy who wound up making the last out for Cleveland got into the game. He wasn't PH'ing but rather had been brought in an inning earlier in a defensive switch replacing Coco Crisp (Martinez went to RF, Guyer moved from RF to LF) right after Heyward stole 2nd then took 3rd on the over-throw [one out, tie game, top 9].

I assume Francona made that move for defensive purposes, probably on the idea that Crisp has a weak arm compared to either Martinez or Guyer and they were guarding against the Sac Fly with Baez at the plate (that's the AB where he wound up bunting the 3rd strike foul) ... but, Geez, wouldn't you have rather had Crisp up with your season on the line and the tying run on 1st than a career utility player with a sub-.200 career BA?

In a series where the Indians OF didn't exactly distinguish themselves defensively or offensively (except, y'know, for the Rajai Davis HR) Crisp was maybe their best guy out there and went 4/12 w/2 doubles plus had a big HR in the previous series.