Regarding the Esquire article, we were discussing the same thing at Purple Row. I think I'll just copy and paste my post from over there:

Well, the headline is 'Sox Win! Phillies Lose.'

I think that's all you need to read to know that it's going to be east coast centric. The next blog post is, 'Cubs lose a close one'. He mentions the outcomes in terms of the Phillies, Red Sox and Cubs; as if the Rockies, Angels and Dbacks had nothing to do with any of it.

Idiotic media. And now they get to pay, by having to watch an all-unknown NLCS.

DbacksSkins... I hail from here and here.
by SouthByTheBorder on Mon Oct 08, 2007 at 01:32:41 AM PDT
[ Parent | Reply to This ]

Let's go, Dbacks. Heck, now that the Rockies are the other NLCS team, we're still getting no respect.

We won the NL West for a reason, dipshits.

I hope to come back later and really go into more detail with this -- on Esquire.com, there is less opportunity to really go in-depth and get the nuance of some issues, both because of length and audience.  There is a very interesting debate in this -- though I hope you can drop the stupid "flip-flop" references.  I have not flip-flopped, and it's a cheap debating trick, beneath both of us.

For now, I just want to clear up a few misconceptions.

1. Scott and I are both from the Cleveland area.  You may enjoy dismissing criticisms as East Coast bias, but it doesn't make any sense in our case.
2. Scott and I are not the same person.  He's saying some stuff, and I'm saying other stuff.  It's clearly marked -- another sign that we have some "critics" who don't actually read what we wrote.  I won't defend everything he wrote, but I would defend some of it.
3. I picked the Rockies, even though I now live in Philadelphia and somewhat root for the Phillies.  (How's that for bias?)
4. Scott also picked the Rockies -- again, did the critics even read any of what we wrote?
5. I never said the D'backs were boring, even though the excerpt above makes it look like I did.  That part about feeling drowsy was not about the D'backs, it was about the constant, same-old national TV coverage of the Cubs that I expected to see.  (Again, go read the article, you'll see.)
6. Just for the record, I started talking favorably about the D'backs in my very next post.  I made a point of not making a pick, but I would have picked them.  It was, in fact, the first substantive thing I said about either team.

I like the Diamondbacks lineup. It's fun to watch a young, talented team, because there's an X-factor in not knowing if they're developing right there in front of you. (That also makes them harder to scout.) Young, Drew and Reynolds could all be great players, even if they're not yet, and they all showed signs of maturing as hitters over the course of the season. Granted, you kind of have to squint to see it in Drew's case, but it's there.

Maybe some other "mainstream writer" also made those observations, but I never saw them anywhere.

7. I hate big-payroll rent-a-player teams -- probably a lot more than you.  Geez, I'm an Indians fan, we're playing the Yankees, do you really have to ask whether I'd root for the D'backs or Cubs?  Think about it.

My final comment for the moment is that I know we have the best possible NLCS matchup ahead of us now, and as a fan, that pleases me a great deal.

Rockies, Dbacks see similarities (AP)
Dbacks, Rockies no strangers (Republic)
'Faceless' Dbacks glitter in spotlight (Republic)
Melvin has faith in rookies (MLB.com)

NLCS schedule, times TBD but Piecoro reports the time of Game 1 is 5/5:30 and Game 2 is 1pm (WTF?)

It depends what question you're asking, what you're  assessing; what level of measurable, reproducible "good" you're talking about. Jim, you often say the only thing that matters is the final W/L. And, at the most basic, important, recognizable, "fan" level, you're absolutely right. The team with the most wins, by definition, is "the best."

But, the issue of whether this W/L record results primarily from intelligent design or  happenstance is a different question, one with a less  self-evident answer.

On the one hand, this team exhibits many qualities that may enable it to "beat" Pythagoras somewhat.  They cant create alot of runs, but they can steal a base and manufacture the one run that wins a game. And they shut off oppenents' running game well. Obviously the pen is great, which provides pythagorean leverage. Maybe Josh stockpiling innings eating starters has something to do with it - I'm open to all that. But the problem at the end of the day is this: Even if one gives Josh and Bob Melvin all the credit in the world for the above construction and resource utilization, no GM that I know of goes into preseason saying, "Our plan is to get outscored by our opponents yet by shoring up the bullpen, improving the running game, etc, we'll manage our negative differential so well that we'll make a run at the pennant, have the league's best record, etc.

Nobody does that. As far as I know, nobody does that because it doesnt make any sense. It may "happen", but as a "plan", it doesnt work.  

There's a great deal of historical evidence that luck has played some role here, and reasserting this year's W/L record doesnt disprove that, so much as change the "question" - back to the one with the self evident answer.

P.S. Enjoy the playoffs :-)

Throw out the stats, look at this fact. The Diamondbacks play in the best division in baseball. From A(rizona) to Z(ito) the NL West is stacked with great pitching and tough hitting ballparks. The Cubs and Phillies were lucky that Bud Selig allowed them to participate in the playoffs. The Padres could have swept either team and the Dodgers probably would have taken them in five. The top pitchers in the National League when you look at ERA and Wins was Webb, Peavy, Penny, Zambrano, and Francis.

The top two teams in the National League are playing each other in the NLCS, how often does that really happen?