Thread: World Series
View Single Post
Old 10-30-2012, 12:55 AM
palehozenychicty palehozenychicty is offline
WSI High Priest
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,312

Originally Posted by TDog View Post
I believe the Giants were significantly better than the Tigers. I belived that in late August. I believed it in September when the Tigers sadly were barely good enough to beat out the White Sox. I also believed the Tigers were clearly better than the Yankees. Two years ago, I thought the difference between the Giants and the Rangers was closer, but the Giants won that series 4-1, and the Rangers didn't have a long-layoff excuse.

I don't believe there is a big difference between leagues right now in that I don't believe the AL is domant over the NL or the NL has acheived dominamce over the AL. The AL held an edge over the NL in interleague play, but seven of the 14 AL teams were no better than .500 against the NL with a wildly unbalanced interleague schedule.

One difference between the leagues is that I see the top teams in the National League being tougher than the top teams in the American League, although the bottom teams in the American League are far more competitive than the bottom teams in the National League. Granted, the Nationals needed more pitching in the postseason, but the NL postseason had a stronger group of teams. But when I look at the Twins, Indians, Red Sox and Blue Jays, I think they were clearly better this year than the than the Astros, Cubs, Rockies and Marlins.

It isn't that the AL is the major of the two major leagues, as it may have seemed in the middle of the last decade. It's that there are more very good teams in the AL and a much smaller difference between top and bottom, which may be mitigated net year by the NL sending their worst team to the AL's most competitive division.

It is also true that good teams grow during the season. The Giants weren't just a hot team as the Cardinals would have been if they made it to the World Series. The Giants were a team that came together in August, a first-place team that kicked it into high gear when they lost the NL's leading hitter, who was having an outstanding defensive season. If you were following the Giants in April, you would have seen a team with inconsistent pitching that couldn't catch the ball. They committed 25 errors in their first 21 games. But they kept tweaking and improving.

I don't think the Tigers' layoff made any difference. It allowed them to set up their rotation and establish what everyone believed to be superior pitching matchups. And it provided them with an excuse.
Indeed. I also believe that the Tigers' lack of overall depth caught up to them. They took bad approaches at the plate and their fundamental play in the field was deeply flawed. How in the world could you send Prince Fielder home on a rally with no outs? C'mon.

You could see once Verlander got hit hard that they had no chance.
Reply With Quote