Built For a Short Series

[LouGehrig]

The 1973 World Series pitted two similar teams in a riveting showdown that went seven games.

The Mets strength was pitching. With a starting rotation of Tom Seaver, Jon Matlack, Jerry Koosman, and George Stone, the Mets had four solid pitchers. In one of their better trades, the Mets had sent Gary Gentry and Danny Frisella to the Braves for George Stone and Felix Millan.

Like the Mets, the A's strength was pitching. With a starting rotation of Catfish Hunter, Ken Holzman, Vida Blue and Blue Moon Odom (how many teams had one player whose last name was another player's first name?).

The A's and Mets in 1973: The World Series Matched Two Teams With Great Pitching

[unreal654]

Teams are built for the long-run and the short-run. But primarily the long-run.

[LouGehrig]

Definitely, but what is meant by "built for a short series" is not literally building a team for a short series but rather trying to have three top pitchers, such as Seaver, Koosman and Matlack, and not worrying as much about hitting. Without such pitchers, teams rely too much on hitting, and that can be fatal. See your Indians and my Yankees.

The Yankees had no one to match up with Sabathia and Carmona, and even though Pettitte stayed with Carmona, Pettitte didn't last as long and Carmona was facing a more dangerous line up, at least in theory.

[Grandstander]

Moving a false idea to a new thread does not suddenly validate it.

Your three good pitcher's theory is false. The history of the post season is against you. Where are you getting this idea from other than searching for a few samples where such such teams did well? You are completely ignoring the times when such teams did not do well in the World Series. This began with the criticism of Earl Weaver, yet Weaver went into each WS with three top flight pitchers...and won one out of three. Palmer, McNally and Cuellar, weren't these incredibly good starting pitchers? How could they lose? Or how about the '88-'90 A's with Stewart, Welch and Moore? They won one of three World Series. Or the '00-'03 A's with the BIG THREE of Hudson, Mulder and Zito? They never made it out of the first round. Or how come Atlanta with the BIGGEST THREE around, only managed one WS win?

So....newsflash....your theory is unsupported by the facts.

Which means that it is incorrect.

And that you should stop presenting it in public.

And that you should quit believing in the theory.

[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Weaver went into each WS with three top flight pitchers...and won one out of three.

I thought that he won one out of four, but I guess my belief was anecdotal.

Wait. Let's see.

1969 Mets beat Birds
1970 Birds beat Reds
1971 Bucs beat Birds
1979 Bucs beat Birds.

That's one out of four. Hold it. I know. I counted the Bucs TWICE. They are only ONE team, so their beating Weaver only counts once.

I better shape up and learn the new way of thinking.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by LouGehrig

I thought that he won one out of four, but I guess my belief was anecdotal.

Wait. Let's see.

1969 Mets beat Birds
1970 Birds beat Reds
1971 Bucs beat Birds
1979 Bucs beat Birds.

That's one out of four. Hold it. I know. I counted the Bucs TWICE. They are only ONE team, so their beating Weaver only counts once.

I better shape up and learn the new way of thinking.

Only Palmer was left of the Big Three in 1979 and he only made 22 starts. They did have great pitching, leading the league in ERA by a lot, but it was more staff wide excellence than three big starters. Since the category was teams with three great starters, not Earl Weaver teams, I limited myself to the question at hand.

[LouGehrig]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

Only Palmer was left of the Big Three in 1979 and he only made 22 starts. They did have great pitching, leading the league in ERA by a lot, but it was more staff wide excellence than three big starters. Since the category was teams with three great starters, not Earl Weaver teams, I limited myself to the question at hand.

OK. No problem.