Yes, I know the ALCS already started, so my previews are coming a little late. Blame the Dodgers, Nationals and that ridiculous 75-minute inning (not to mention the nearly five-hour nine-inning game). But that's all done and we're left with a final four that's been waiting a while to get to this point. They've all won multiple championships in franchise history. Toronto's was the most recent. In 1993. None of these teams have even been to the World Series since the 1997 Indians. It's been a combined 227 years (an average of 56.75) since one of these teams won the World Series. Well, that's going to change in a couple weeks.
First, a few comments on the four Division Series. Toronto-Texas shocked me. Not so much because the Blue Jays won or even because they swept it. But how easy it was. I was expecting the Rangers to slug it out with them and have some high-scoring games. It was only Toronto that brought the bats, though. Meanwhile, I thought Cleveland had no shot against Boston. But the Indians did what they've done all year. Win with pitching.
Over in the National League, the Cubs really, really impressed me. After the Giants won Game 3 (despite MadBum giving up a three-run bomb to the opposing pitcher), I thought their even-year mojo was going to take over, especially after they took that lead into the ninth in the Game 4. But the Cubs, in very un-Cubs-like fashion, refused to go down quietly and put up a four-spot to win and clinch. (Two questions regarding the San Francisco bullpen in that game: If Romo's your closer, why not start the inning with him? And, does Bruce Bochy know that relievers are allowed to pitch to more than one hitter?)
Meanwhile, I thought the Dodgers made a tremendous mistake by starting Kershaw in Game 4. Shows how much I know. My rationale was that down 2-1, knowing they'd have to win one without him, I would've taken my chances with Urias at home and gone ace vs. ace in Game 5 rather than giving Washington the clear pitching advantage (at least when it came to starters) in the finale. Well, we of course saw things play out a little differently, as Dave Roberts totally outmanaged Dusty Baker, Clayton Kershaw exorcised his playoff demons, and the Dodgers finally won a playoff series.
So now we're left with two of the most historic, beloved franchises in the game, while we've got the ALCS that no one would've expected (and the matchup I'm sure TBS was hoping for). When they revealed the LCS schedules, they mentioned the "Cubs factor" as the reason the NLCS is in primetime on the days when both series have a game. Except it doesn't really have anything to do with the Cubs. Yes, Cubs-Dodgers is the marquee matchup. But you've got LA and Chicago, the second- and third-largest cities in America, while on the other side you've got Cleveland (a mid-sized market) and Toronto (a major city, yes, but in another country). Last year, when the NLCS was Cubs-Mets, that series was primarily in primetime, so why would this year be any different?
Anyway, we'll start in the AL because that's the series that's already underway. And it's basically the polar opposites of Cleveland pitching against Toronto hitting. Which puts the onus on the Indians' pitchers. Because the Blue Jays lineup got in a groove during that Texas series. And if they hit the way they can (and displayed against the Rangers), it'll be really tough on Cleveland's pitching staff. Because any little mistake will get hit from here to Mississauga.
That I think is the biggest thing that will separate these two teams. I'm not sure how long you can expect to keep Toronto's bats quiet. Especially in a seven-game series. Don't get me wrong, Cleveland's got a great pitching staff, but the Blue Jays pitching staff is incredibly underrated. Their offense gets all the attention, and rightfully so, but they wouldn't have made back-to-back ALCS if they didn't have the pitching to back it up.
That's why I think Toronto will win this series. The Blue Jays definitely have the advantage in the lineup, and the Indians definitely have the advantage in the bullpen. I rate Cleveland's starters as slightly better than Toronto's, but not to that great of an extent. And the Blue Jays pitchers don't have to face that lineup. They know their window is closing. Bautista and Encarnacion are probably both gone after the season. The Blue Jays won't want to waste this era without a World Series appearance, and I don't think they will. Toronto in six.
Cubs-Dodgers. This is the NLCS the baseball purists wanted. One of the game's marquee franchises back on the game's grandest stage. For the Dodgers, it seems like it's been a lifetime. For the Cubs, it actually has been. The last time Chicago even played in the World Series was four months after World War II ended. During the Giants series, someone posted a stat that AT&T Park has hosted more postseason games than Wrigley. Then I saw that the Cubs are winless all-time in LCS play (their last World Series appearance came 24 years before the LCS existed).
In Dodgerland, 28 years without playing in the World Series might as well be an eternity. And who would've thought it would be this Dodgers team that finally had that playoff breakthrough. Kershaw's literally their only worthwhile starting pitcher, and this mix-and-match lineup they've got is nowhere near as good as the lineups of Dodgers teams past (it also really bothers me that they have like seven starting outfielders, yet continue to use Andrew Toles in left).
Also, quick sidebar, you know my feelings on pitchers with single-digit numbers. Well, we're guaranteed to have at least one in the World Series, two if Toronto advances. See what you started Marcus Stroman! (Since they're the only remaining team without one, does that mean I should root for Cleveland?)
Anyway, off the soapbox. LA obviously did everything it needed to do in Game 5 against Washington, including using three of its four starting pitchers. The Cubs had no such problems. They went four with the Giants, so their starters can just stay in the same order against the Dodgers. And Chicago's advantage in the starting pitching department is massive. Even assuming Kershaw starts Game 2, he'll be going against Kyle Hendricks, a Cy Young candidate. But the other three matchups: Lester-Maeda, Arrieta-Hill/Urias and Lackey-Urias/Hill are all advantage Cubs.
Dave Roberts also won't be able to get away with overusing the bullpen the way he did in the Nationals series. We all saw what the Cubs did to the Giants' bullpen. The Dodgers have a better bullpen than San Francisco, but the Cubs shouldn't be scared of any LA reliever other than Jansen. Their bullpen is far superior anyway.
Starting pitching: advantage Cubs. Bullpen: advantage Cubs. Lineup: definitely advantage Cubs. LA's got its left-handed lineup, which isn't bad, and it's right-handed lineup, then switches in the middle of the game when a reliever comes in. The Cubs can mix-and-match, too, but it seems like Roberts does it just to do it (this isn't Little League, everybody doesn't need to play), while Maddon does it with a purpose (also, why is Javier Baez NOT the Cubs' regular second baseman?).
San Francisco was the scariest matchup for the Cubs, and they pulled that one out in dramatic fashion. They ended the Giants' even-year mojo, while their bad postseason karma never crept in. The LCS is different than the Division Series. We all know about the crazy stuff (Bill Madlock, Steve Bartman) that has come between the Cubs and the Promised Land before. This just feels different though. After what happened in San Francisco the other night, I think they know it too. I'll say the series goes six because I'd like to see them clinch at Wrigley, but I'm not even sure it gets that far. The Cubs win their first NLCS in franchise history and send the entire baseball-watching world (except for maybe Cardinals and White Sox fans) into delirium.
No comments:
Post a Comment