Proceeds from the ads below will be donated to the
Bob Wuesthoff scholarship fund.
Monday, October 03, 2005 |
Pundits Predict Postseason
Thanks to Sean for reminding me about this. This post may float (i.e., the time/date may change over time).
- Jim Caple: Angels in five.
- Buster Olney, developer of the "productive out" for which the Angels are apparently the poster children (gad): ALDS: Red Sox in five; Angels in four; NLDS: Houston in five; Padres in five (!!!)
ALCS: Angels over Red Sox in six; NLCS: Astros over Padres in five.
World Series: Angels over Astros in six, MVP: John Lackey - Jayson Stark: no specific predictions other than the Astros winning it all on the backs of Clemens and Pettitte. (Inconsistently, he observes that the Angels have some offensive production issues, forgetting the trouble the 'stros have had in that department.)
- Ken Rosenthal: ALDS: Angels in five; Red Sox in four.
NLDS: Cardinals in four; Astros in four.
No picks beyond that yet. - Ah, thanks to Pearly Gates, we have ESPN's complete pundit-by-pundit projection matrix. Frankly, I'm shocked that six of these guys think the Angels will win it all, and nine think they will advance to the ALCS (out of fifteen). I'm scared they won't make it out of the first round.
Comments:
Yeah, I wasn't going to say that, but, hey, whatever. Wait -- are you saying Gammons is an idiot? And I thought he was just a Bosox partisan...
The Angels have the best pitching in AL, which usually matters this time of year.
I am sick of the Yankess and the Red Sox, but they are both flawed enough that they are very beatable.
The White Sox slid into the Play-Offs, but the '03 Marlins showed that anything can happen in October.
The NL hardly matters this year, but it would be nice to see the Astros make a deep run. Like the '02 Angels, they are an old expansion team that has never won. The Padres stink and the Braves were boring five years ago. Everybody seems to forget the Cards are a really good team.
I am sick of the Yankess and the Red Sox, but they are both flawed enough that they are very beatable.
The White Sox slid into the Play-Offs, but the '03 Marlins showed that anything can happen in October.
The NL hardly matters this year, but it would be nice to see the Astros make a deep run. Like the '02 Angels, they are an old expansion team that has never won. The Padres stink and the Braves were boring five years ago. Everybody seems to forget the Cards are a really good team.
The Angels are going to be a pretty trendy pick, because they finished hot, wrapped up their division early, have the same record as the Yankees and Red Sox, and, on paper, are probably the most complete team in the AL playoffs. That said, there's clearly no favorite to win. From a game-theory standpoint, you'd probably take the Red Sox if you think (as most people do) that the White Sox are the weakest team in, simply because Boston would have the best chance to reach the ALCS. I think people are underrating the White Sox, though.
I don't know. The Chisox to me are nothing less than the beneficiaries of living in the AL Central. All those teams have been badly flawed in some way, and when your principle compitition includes two bad teams at the bottom and no real near competition at the top, it just doesn't seem to me to be a springboard for advancing. The same dynamic exists in both Central divisions, with the Indians (twice) and the Cards (last year) being the only exceptions.
Rob, I agree with you inasmuch as I think the White Sox are the weakest of the four. However, I think that most people are just dismissing them out of hand in a series that they could dominante if Contreras and Beuhrle are on. I'd give them about a 40% chance of beating the Red Sox.
If our starters can keep the Yanks to 4 or less runs over 6 or 7 innings we have a chance. If they get to our starters big, early; we'll have a serious uphill battle to win...
# posted by 
: 10/04/2005 12:54:00 PM
: 10/04/2005 12:54:00 PMNewer› ‹Older
 |
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.