Ah, Nick, how I've missed you. After a string of merely boring, and not laughably terrible, columns, I had forsaken you. However, with
this week's terribleness, I am back in your bosom.
From the outset, you make no sense:
QUOTE
If you believe in the power of threes, the Cardinals, Yankees, Red Sox, and Phillies have a chance to emerge as very good postseason teams, because having three top starters is important in the playoffs.
Premise=solid. Having three elite starters is pretty awesome in the playoffs.
Execution=makes no sense. The Red Sox do not have an approximation of an elite third starter. That has kind of been the story of the season, actually: The search for a decent third starter. We thought for a short time in June it might be Penny. We hoped it would be Smoltz. We now dare to dream it might be Buchholz. However, the Sox definitely do not have "three top starters."
But let's see where you go with this.
QUOTE
Peterson bases his Phillies evaluation on the established Cole Hamels, the addition of Cliff Lee, an effective Joe Blanton, and the addition of Pedro Martinez, who Peterson feels will be a big piece in the postseason picture.
Aha. So, by three top starters being important, you actually meant: three top starters and a fourth guy who's important. Makes sense. And you also intend to completely ignore the Phillies' second best pitcher (behind Lee), a young man named J.A. Happ, who's got an ERA+ of 167 and a WHIP of 1.172 and is kind of awesome, thus far. But, by all means, Pedro as fifth starter is crucial to this team's playoff success.
QUOTE
Peterson loves what he sees from New York’s CC Sabathia and A.J. Burnett, and, he said, “[Andy] Pettitte has really started to pitch well, and when you add his postseason record, it’s pretty impressive to think what they could do.’’
He also thinks Joba Chamberlain adds great depth and can be dominant.
Now I see. What's important for the best playoff teams is to have two top starters, a third mediocre guy with a good postseason record compiled when he was much younger and better and on HGH, and then a fourth guy who adds great depth. I believe in the power of two plus one plus one!
Then we get a discussion of John Smoltz as part of the analysis of the Cards, who is apparently not part of the power of three, but Peterson wanted to talk about him, so you dutifully wrote it down and included it in the column, even though it didn't really fit that first paragraph. How expertly lazy of you. Well done.
Then there's a lot of blah, blah about teams who don't really have three top starters, where you keep discussing four starters, etc. I kind of got bored in there. Luckily you say some dumb stuff about the Rays, which woke me back up:
QUOTE
The Rays’ rotation has been an enigma most of the year. They might have messed up when they traded Jackson to Detroit. James Shields and Scott Kazmir have struggled with sub-.500 records. David Price has an ERA over 5.00 and Matt Garza has underachieved, as usual.
Maybe they did mess up with that Jackson trade. But James Shields, with his 3.81 ERA and ERA+ of 120 is not the problem, despite his sub-.500 record. And just what would you have Matt Garza do, Nick? He's got a 3.74 ERA, an ERA+ of 122, and has only given up 137 hits in 159 innings. That's pretty dang good for a 25-year-old.
And does Jeff Niemann not count as a starter? He's got a 3.71 ERA, and ERA+ of 123, and he's even got one of those winning records that are so important. He's got two shutouts.
So, to summarize, the Rays have three starters (the power of three!) with ERA+s of 120, 122, and 123. That seems pretty dang outstanding, actually.
The Phillies, whose top three are the most awesomest and who are the best set up for the playoffs? Their top three would be: 529 (really, that's Cliff Lee's number), 167 (Happ, who doesn't count), and 112. Hmmm. The Rays' number three is better than their number three, but I guess the overall strength is on the Phils' side. (Although that number three is fat Joe Blanton. Cole Hamels is at 91.)
Well, the Yankees are second most awesomest, so let's check out their top 3: 125, 112, 109. Wait a second. That doesn't seem better than the Rays!
But the Rays pitchers are an enigma.
Anyhoo - time to wrap this first part up, Nick. How do you finish off your point about the power of three big starters?
QUOTE
“You either have those top rotations or you have a bullpen that can take over in the sixth inning and be dominant the rest of the way,’’ Peterson said. “The teams which also have the bullpens are in pretty good shape in the postseason.’’
Good finish, Nick. Solid.
The rest of the column has plenty of idiocy, too, including another your reference to Dusty Baker as a "good manager" and Billy Wagner's "dogged personality," but I'll focus on just the Joe Mauer item, because it's fun.
QUOTE
7. Joe Mauer, C, Twins - You can only imagine what Mauer would be hitting if he weren’t a catcher. He has batted .392 since the All-Star break, second only to Holliday. Any chance he would ever play another position? “That’s been bandied about for years,’’ said one of his teammates, “but clearly his value is as a catcher who can hit and who also is a very good catcher. At the very most, you could see him taking on a Victor Martinez-type of role where he catches part of the time and either DHes or plays first part of the time. He’s not going to play first in Minnesota. But I don’t think doing something like that is remotely in his head.’’
Yes, Nick, let's imagine ... Oh, I know - he would be hitting BETTER!
Mauer as Catcher: .388/.460/.663/1.123.
Mauer at DH: .321/.398/.506/.904.
Isn't this one of those stats that virtually any baseball fan knows? It's been all over the place. Joe Mauer is an awesome defensive catcher who loves catching and being part of the game. Change his position, though, Nick that would be a great idea. What's especially great about this paragraph is that you reprint the "that's been bandied about" quote by the unnamed player even though the implicit quote is actually, "that's been bandied about by idiots like you."
I'm back, Nick. Everything you write for the next month, I'm reading.
