How can teams that have so much trouble scoring runs still be in the playoff hunt? That's simple. It's pitching, my friend.
You have a talent for stating the gut-wrenchingly obvious, my friend.
The Nationals are the worst offensive team in baseball, dead last, 30th. They've only scored 542 runs this year. Yet because of their pitching, they still have a chance with 24 games remaining because they can get people out.
The Houston Astros have the best pitching staff in the game while boasting the 26th-best offense in baseball ... The Marlins have the 19th-best offense in the Majors, yet they have the sixth-best pitching staff in the NL ...
So you see, it's not about $200 million offenses; it's about pitching and defense.
That's what gets you a ring.
Washington Nationals: 76-71
Houston Astros: 78-68
Florida Marlins: 78-69
New York Yankees ($200 million offense): 83-62
The Nationals are going to have a hard time winning a ring while they're watching the playoffs on TV.
This excerpt is kind of long, but it's worth it:
Baseball is a very complicated, yet very simple sport, all at the same time. 15 years ago when I was a part of a World Championship team, we didn't get a big name guy at the trade deadline, in July or August, and I can honestly say we didn't need one, either. It may have done more harm than good.
You see, there is a very delicate balance in a major-league clubhouse, and a lot of it has to do with the fact that you trust each other and love each other. That started back in the minor leagues for some of us, back in spring training for others, but sometimes bringing in that NEW guy may just send you in the wrong direction.
Just look at the moves the Red Sox made last year. Before the 2004 season they picked up Curt Schilling and Keith Foulke, then later that season picked up a couple small, but important pickups like Dave Roberts, Orlando Cabrera, and Doug Mientkiewicz. All of which are great guys.
Okay, so your argument is there is a delicate balance in major-league clubhouses, so teams shouldn't have to bring in big name guys midseason, or even one "NEW" guy at all. What's your example? A team that brought in a bunch of new guys.
It's a bad, pointless argument, but an even worse piece of evidence. Then again, baseball is a very complicated, yet very simple sport.
It's a simple plan, but every team has a different way of looking at it. You have your own jokes, your own teammates who keep things loose, make things fun. Sometimes when you change just the smallest thing, the team goes down the drain.
Unlike the 2004 Boston Red Sox, the only team you chose to mention in your column.
And finally:
Barry made himself into a hitting machine by what he has done off the field. You may want to cut him some slack, because if you don't know greatness when you see it and you want to keep saying he cheated or something stupid like that ... well then, I can't help you. But if you are like me, and you know players do work hard and can make themselves better, then just enjoy his greatness and don't question things that don't matter.
I want to keep saying he might have cheated because he might have cheated.
Also, "don't question things that don't matter"? A) Who the hell are you to tell me not to question things and B) steroids don't matter?
This is the same guy who wrote of the Palmeiro case, "I'm physically sick and disgusted that this has happened."
Dibble, that shit don't matter!
Labels: rob dibble
