Obligatory post-World Series post.
First off, the ten year old is happy this morning. Although the Cardinals have a glorious history, since they became his National League team what they've mostly done in the post-season is lose. This year doesn't quite make up for 2004 for him, but he'll take it, and most likely this has sealed him as a fan for life.
But while I was rooting for St Louis, the Tigers let me down. I expected and wanted the Series to go the whole seven games.
There have been a lot of great World Series in the last decade---2002, 2001, and 1997 topping the list---but this year's wasn't one of them. The whole post-season was kind of quiet. The Twins went without a peep against Oakland, Oakland went without a peep against Detroit, and did the Padres actually show up to play against the Cards? The Dodgers put up very little fuss against the Mets, and the Yankees series with the Tigers was exciting for how unexciting it actually was---the Yankees didn't roll over, they were mowed down by great pitching. Happens to the best of teams. But, finally, well-pitched games are only interesting when both teams' pitchers are at the top of their form and both teams' hitters are making the opposing pitcher and fielders work for their money.
Which leaves the NCLS as the saving grace of the post-season.
That's the test of a fan. How much fun did you have watching your team lose?
I don't mean the smug self-loathing that comes over Cubs fans year after year, or the perverse I knew it, I knew it! grim satisfaction Boston fans get every time the Sox fall apart.
I mean the pure, kid-like, what a great game fun that sends you out of the park or has you turning off the TV with almost exactly the same lightness of heart and hope for the future as if your guys had won.
Sometimes it can even be more fun to watch them lose.
The test of this for, say, a Red Sox fan, would be, Which World Series is actually more fun to remember and talk about? 1975, 1986, or 2004?
Now my rooting for the Cardinals was due to a mix of sentimentality and National League loyalty, so take this with a grain of salt, and don't tell the ten year old---I'd rather have watched them lose in seven tough games than win in 5 relatively quiet, if not easy ones. Game 4's back and forth-er was fun, and Kenny Rogers' pitching gem (along with the smudge controversy) made Game 2 exciting, because it met my criteria for exciting well-ptiched games. And the Tigers didn't exactly lay down and die. Still.
The Mets-Cardinals series isn't my favorite lost series. That would be the Dodgers-Mets playoff in '88. But when it was all said and done, Carlos Beltran standing frozen at the plate as strike three passed him by is only the last rueful coda to a good series and a great season.
Our teenager and Tom Watson's 11 year old aren't ready for it yet, but there comes a time when what you really want to see is the Game.
In heaven it is always the middle innings of the final game of a see-sawing seven game series, the score's tied, four to four, your best hitter's coming to the plate, and their best pitcher's on the mound.
2002 a great series? You are a cruel man, Mr. Mannion.
Posted by: Mike Schilling | Saturday, October 28, 2006 at 11:34 AM
The world series isn't about baseball! It's about which millionaire gets the keys to a new car at the end of the last game! Witness Eckstein's first words upon winning the MVP: "I'd like to thank Chevrolet . . ."
Thank god we have the trenchant, biting commentary of smart guys like Joe Buck to help us see through the corporate spectacle.
Posted by: Matt | Saturday, October 28, 2006 at 01:36 PM
If I'm a Detroit fan (and I sorta was, if only because of their own glorious history), I'm playing the "if only" game with our pitchers and their inability to throw the ball accurately to their fellow infielders.
It just wasn't a very scintillating Series. I suppose I should be happy for Weaver, who redeemed himself after an absolutely awful start for the Angels this year (dumped off the roster so his little brother could take that slot! How tough must that have been?), and Eckstein played very well (the spirit of Eddie Stanky lives!), but...
Baseball should be played in the daytime when it's in cold-weather regions.
Posted by: Linkmeister | Saturday, October 28, 2006 at 02:28 PM
2002 a great Series? You are a *wise* man, Mr. Mannion.
I was rooting for the Cards, partly because I find it hard to root against David Eckstein and Scott Spezio, but since I have no real loyalty to the Cards, I would have liked to see it go seven games, and I would have liked to see a more exciting Series.
Posted by: Kate Marie | Saturday, October 28, 2006 at 03:00 PM
If I'm a Detroit fan (and I sorta was, if only because of their own glorious history), I'm playing the "if only" game with our pitchers and their inability to throw the ball accurately to their fellow infielders.
Next year, the designated fielder...
Posted by: Mike Schilling | Saturday, October 28, 2006 at 07:28 PM
As you doubtless know, Mr. Mannion, the fans desire to see a 7-game Series, which you describe so well, is the only time fans and the baseball business are on the same side.
The players only share the dough from the first four games. After that, it's all management's share. Also, the longer the Series goes, the more money Fox gets.
I root for 7-gamers anyway. Hopeless romantic, I guess.
Posted by: JMG | Saturday, October 28, 2006 at 08:51 PM
The Cards put together a run good enough to get it done, but baseball got the champion it deserved. Talk about parity: neither league had what you would call a commanding team (Yanks, Mets both at .599) and entering the playoffs only 5 of the 8 teams had anything like a good record. (St. Louis was a division winner but for all intents and purposes it looked like a wild card with those 83 wins.)Very NHL-like.
Posted by: sean | Saturday, October 28, 2006 at 11:54 PM
(St. Louis was a division winner but for all intents and purposes it looked like a wild card with those 83 wins.)
It would be difficult to be the best second-place team with a record that bad. The Cards looked like what they were, the first-place team in a weak division.
NL Wild Card teams:
1995 Rockies 77-67 (corresponds to 87-75 for a full season)
1996 Dodgers 90-72 (Cards won the Central with 88 wins)
1997 Marlins 92-70 (Divison winners Astros with 84 wins, Giants with 90)
1998 Cubs 90-73
1999 Mets 97-66 (Astros also had 97)
2000 Mets 94-68
2001 Cards 93-69 (Tied with Astros at 93. DBacks had 92, Braves 88)
2002 Giants 95-66
2003 Marlins 91-71 (Cubs had 88)
2004 Astros 92-70
2005 Astros 89-73 (Padres had 82)
2006 Dodgers 88-74 (Tied with Padres. Cards had 83)
Posted by: Mike Schilling | Sunday, October 29, 2006 at 01:28 AM