Breaking Down the MLB Postseason with Baseball Oracle Jeff Pearlman
Uncategorized October 2nd. 2006, 3:15pm
The interminable 162-game march to the postseason is complete. Our preseason predictions won’t have anyone confusing us with Jimmy the Greek anytime soon (four out of eight? puhleese). And for those of you who love/hate the idea of a salary cap in baseball, five of the eight postseason players are among the Top 15 spenders in the league. San Diego (17th), Minnesota (19th), and Oakland (21st) just missed.
But you’re far more interested in a breakdown of how the playoffs will shake out. To do that, we told former Sports Illustrated scribe and the author of Love Me, Hate Me, Jeff Pearlman, that we’d sell John Rocker his home address if he didn’t answer a few questions. Like the Detroit Tigers, he caved.
Q: The Tigers were swept against lowly KC to end the regular season, and the embarrassing collapse gave the division title to the Twins. It also means Detroit must play the Yankees, and New York has home field advantage. Do you give Detroit any chance? Are we looking at a sweep?
I think the Tigers might win one game in Detroit, because they’re a spunky group of ballplayers who don’t seem overly prone to 100% playoff intimidation. But reality is reality, and the Tigers don’t match up well with the Yankees in any area. New York is baseball’s best team, hands-down, and they won’t be scared of anything that crosses their path. Detroit has excellent young pitching, but try facing this lineup for three- or four- straight games. It’s an impossible task.
Q: The Twins have homefield advantage against the A’s. What’s the probability of five low-scoring, one-run games?
This is a series that’s all about young pitching and the ability to cope with playoff pressure. I think the Twins are clearly the favorite here.
Q: Who do you have coming out of the AL and why?
Yankees. They’re playing well, their lineup is stacked and they have the experience. Plus, and this sounds weird, they’re due.
Q: Pedro. Pedro. Pedro. Discuss.
Tragic. Tragic. Tragic. One week ago I was convinced the Mets were the NL rep, and a viable World Series winner. Now I’m pretty sure the Dodgers will win this series. Combine Pedro’s absence with Glavine’s track record and a sloppy two-week stretch, and it’s hard to see the Mets doing well.
Q: Cardinals at Padres. The team with no bullpen against the team with no offense. Tough to get excited about this series.
I disagree. The Cardinals are dreadfully boring, but San Diego is really fun to watch. Dave Roberts, Mike Cameron, Josh Barfield—these are exciting, hard-nosed players who really go after the baseball. Are the Padres good? Not overwhelmingly so. But they are fun.
Q: How much will the Roger Clemens steroids accusations affect the postseason? Will announcers be talking about it, or will it all be swept under the rug? Do you expect the LA Times writer, Lance Pugmire to end up in jail?
I doubt Lance goes to jail, because it’s an entirely different circumstance. I also think MLB got lucky with the Astros dropping off, because if Clemens was around in the postseason, it’d be all about his alleged usage. While it’s still a story that must be discussed, it doesn’t carry the weight.
Q: No Yankees-Red Sox for the first time in years. Does this matter?
I say thank God. Unless you live in one of the two cities, it got boring. I love seeing the Yanks matched against the Tigers: Vets-kids. Power-scrappiness. Arrogance-laid-back. It’s a unique matchup. Wakefield facing Derek Jeter? Old news.
Q: Who do you have coming out of the NL and why?
Dodgers. I like their starting pitching, and J.D. Drew is swinging a very mighty stick. He’ll carry them.
Q: Your World Series winner?
Dodgers over Yankees, 4 games to 3.
5 Responses to “Breaking Down the MLB Postseason with Baseball Oracle Jeff Pearlman”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.

October 2nd, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Wait, I’m not sure I follow what you intended to convey with your salay cap comment. Are you saying that close to one half of the playoff teams are in the top half in payroll with a little less that half come from the bottom half therefore suggesting money is not as big a factor as it is usually made out to be? An 5-3 make up of playoff teams would suggest to me a significant but not overwhelming correlation between payroll and peformance, which to me suggests a salary cap is not necessary. Plus with the emergence of the Marlins at the end of the season (assuming they mature and get better), next year we could see a 4-4 breakdown.
October 2nd, 2006 at 3:56 pm
No point at all to the Salary Cap inclusion, Mr. Potato. Just putting it out there for you fellas to discuss.
October 2nd, 2006 at 4:53 pm
I love the Dodgers pitching staff as well. That is why I have them in my World Series. HAHAHA the only person to pick Oakland to win it all ????? I love it!
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:18 pm
The team with Pujols is boring, but J.D. Drew will carry the NL champs.
October 2nd, 2006 at 10:41 pm
Yo. I loved the book about Bonds. It was way better than your book on the 1986 Mets.
Regards,
Mike Fitzpatrick