Archive for 2006

1976 World Series – Game Four
October 21, 1976 at Yankee Stadium
Reds 7, Yankees 2  Reds Win Best of Seven Series 4-0

For the second straight season, the Reds won the World Series and this year, they did it dominating fashion.  They went a perfect 7-0 in their seven playoff games and other then maybe a couple of games, all of them were won pretty handily.  No team yet has ever swept a World Series, although it’s been made more difficult with the three series format now in place but you have to appreciate how dominating this team was. This was also the last time announcers from participating teams (Rizzuto and Brennaman) would be used to broadcast the series as the networks (ABC, NBC and
eventually DirecTV satellite tv) would soon exercise their influence.

Gary Nolan got the start for the Reds and he went up against Ed Figueroa.  The Yankees actually took an early lead in this game.  Chris Chambliss singled home Thurman Munson in the bottom of the first to give the Yankees a 1-0 lead.

Neither team would score in the second or third inning, but then in the top of the fourth, the Reds struck.  Joe Morgan drew a walk before Tony Perez lined out to center.  Morgan stole second and then Dan Driessen fouled out to catcher.  George Foster kept the inning alive with a single that scored Morgan and then Johnny Bench came through with a huge two run shot to give the Reds a 3-1 lead.

The Yankees answered in the bottom of the fifth inning.  Munson singled home Rivers and now just a single run seperated the two teams.  Neither team scored in the sixth, seventh or eighth innings and the score was still 3-2 heading into the top of the ninth.

Tony Perez led off the ninth with a walk and he moved to second on a wild pitch.  Dan Driessen walked and then Figueroa was replaced by Dick Tidrow.  George Foster flew out to center and then Johnny Bench put the game away with a huge three run shot to make it 6-2.  Dave Concepcion later drove in Cesar Geronimo with when the two had back to back doubles, but the Reds had more then enough to win the game.

Will McEnaney put the Yankees down in order in the ninth inning and for the Reds won their first back to back World Series in franchise history.

By Thaq Diesel

I feel like I just saw my ex-girlfriend at the mall with her new beau.  I didn’t think I would feel either way about who won the National League Pennant, but I’m officially mad that it was the Cardinals.  Sigh.  I wonder if they even have a shot against the Tigers.  Part of me thinks they do if only because everyone thinks the Tigers have already won it without having thrown the first pitch. 

I don’t care what he told Chris Myers -Scott Rolen still hates Tony LaRussa.  That’s because LaRussa is a jerk.  I like how they had bud light backdrops and locker covers in the locker room for the champagne. 

Finally – I just saw the premiere of “The Prestige” tonight.  It’s strange how the reviews I read either loved it or hated it.  There was no in between.  I LOVED it.  It’s probably about 30 minutes too long, but the story is great and I was really struck by the ending.  I didn’t get it at first, but after about 10 minutes I finally figured out what was going on.  I don’t think the (final – there are many) gotcha was as good as the Sixth Sense, but  there was more substance to the final ending.  Anyway, I hope my friends see the movie because I don’t want to ruin it for anyone but I’d really like to talk to people about it.

1976 World Series – Game Three
October 19, 1976 at Yankee Stadium
Reds 6, Yankees 2  Reds Lead Best of Seven Series 3-0

The Reds continued their winning ways as they took a commanding 3-0 lead over the Yankees in the 1976 World Series.  Pat Zachry went up against Dock Ellis and the Yankees never really had much of a chance in this one.

The big inning for the Reds was the second.  Dan Driessen led off with a single and then he stole second base.  George Foster drove Driessen home with a double and then Foster moved to third on Johnny Bench’s single.  Foster then scored when Bench was forced out second on Cesar Geronimo’s ground out.  Geronimo stole second and then he scored on Dave Concepcion’s single to make it 3-0.  It was only the second inning and the Reds had all the runs they’d need in this one.

The Reds added a run in the fourth inning on a solo homerun by Dan Driessen and the Yankees finally got to Pat Zachry in the bottom of the fourth when Oscar Gamble singled home Chris Chambliss to make it 4-1.  Jim Mason hit a solo shot off of Zachy in the seventh to make it 4-2 but that would be the closest the Yankees got.

The Reds put two more runs on the board in the eighth inning to give their relief pitchers a more comfortable lead.  Pete Rose scored on Joe Morgan’s double and then Foster singled home Morgan to make it 6-2.

Zachry went 6 2/3 innings and he gave up the two runs on six hits and five walks with six strikeouts.  Will McEnaney pitched the final 2 1/3 innings and gave up only two hits.

The Reds were one win away from their second consecutive World Series.  If they won tomorrow, they’d be the only team to go 7-0 in a playoffs since the current format was put in place back in 1969.

1976 World Series – Game Two
October 17, 1976 at Riverfront Stadium
Reds 4, Yankees 3  Reds Lead Best of Seven Series 2-0

The Reds continued to roll as they held back a late Yankee comeback to win game two of the World Series.  Fred Norman was the starter for the Reds and Catfish Hunter threw for the Yankees.

The Reds jumped all over Hunter in the second inning.  Dan Driessen led off with a double and he scored on George Foster’s single.  Foster was then gunned down trying to steal second base before Johnny Bench doubled.  Cesar Geronimo drew a walk and Dave Concepcion drove home Bench with a single to make it 2-0.  Concepcion stole second and then Pete Rose walked to load the bases up before Ken Griffey hit a sac. fly to give the Reds a three run lead.

The Yankees finally got to Norman in the fourth inning when Graig Nettles singled home Thurman Munson to make it 3-1.  The Yankees struck again in the seventh when Fred Stanley singled home Willie Randolph and then Stanley scored on Thurman Munson’s fielders choice to tie the game up 3-3. 

While the Yankees were coming back, Hunter was shutting down the Reds.  From the third to the eighth inning, he retired fifteen straight batters.  Jack Billingham had relieved Norman and he was retired all eight batters he faced.  The Reds entered the bottom of the ninth and the game was still knotted at three a piece.

Dave Concepcion flew out to start things off in the ninth, then Pete Rose flew out to left.  Then Ken Griffey reached second base on a critical error by Fred Stanley in what should have been an inning ending ground out.  Joe Morgan was given an intentional pass, then Tony Perez came up huge with a clutch single to drive home Griffey and end the game.

Things would shift to Yankees Stadium for game three.  Needless to say, it would be a must win situation for the Yankees.

By Thaq Diesel

I just finished reading Moneyball, the study about the Oakland A’s and their success in reaching the playoffs despite having a smaller payroll.  The book rambled at length about Billy Beane in both positive and negative light.  The main thrust of the book was that statistical analysis was more important than baseball’s conventional wisdom.

One big case made by Moneyball was that making an out (e.g. a sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, caught stealing, etc…) was statistically worse for scoring runs (the lifeblood of winning baseball) than leaving the runner on base and trying to hit them in.  It also argued that taking pitches and on base percentage, that is taking walks, was much better than aggressive hitting. 

This flies in the face of many things that I have espoused on this website this year.  I once got incredibly angry at Deion Sanders (a Reds player at the time) in Riverfront Stadium because he couldn’t get the ball out of the infield with the bases loaded and one out.  He didn’t execute even a sacrifice, dagnabbit!  Since he made an out, Primetime didn’t execute the Billy Beane Moneyball system either, but I was apparently mad at Deion for the wrong reasons.

Or was I?  I was amazed in the series versus the Tigers at how much the announcers railed against the A’s reluctance to steal.  To bunt runners over.  To do the things Detroit was doing (well except chain smoking like old Jimmy Leland).  Despite Oakland’s success during the regular season the past few years, they get unceremoniously bounced from the playoffs.  Usually in sweep fashion.  Moneyball blamed a “small sample size.”  That is, if the playoffs were, say, a 15-game series, the A’s would win 9 out of 10 times.  It’s like blaming the house in Vegas because you ran out of money before you could count enough cards in a six-shoe deck to win your rent for the month. 

I don’t know how to analyze this one.  On one hand, the A’s have done a lot with seemingly anonymous rosters sprinkled with castaway and stray cat free agents.  Yet they haven’t won in the playoffs.  Do they drop what got them there and start smallball like their opponents once the playoffs start?  Or go with what got them there?

Will the Reds need to go the route of ragtag players and “playing the odds” with their mid-market payroll?  They can’t think about that until they are rid of the salaries of Griffey and Milton. 

I thought Moneyball was an interesting read.  It had a great profile of Scott Hatteberg.  He was the prototypical Moneyball hitter.

By Thaq Diesel

I just finished reading Moneyball, the study about the Oakland A’s and their success in reaching the playoffs despite having a smaller payroll.  The book rambled at length about Billy Beane in both positive and negative light.  The main thrust of the book was that statistical analysis was more important than baseball’s conventional wisdom.

One big case made by Moneyball was that making an out (e.g. a sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, caught stealing, etc…) was statistically worse for scoring runs (the lifeblood of winning baseball) than leaving the runner on base and trying to hit them in.  It also argued that taking pitches and on base percentage, that is taking walks, was much better than aggressive hitting. 

This flies in the face of many things that I have espoused on this website this year.  I once got incredibly angry at Deion Sanders (a Reds player at the time) in Riverfront Stadium because he couldn’t get the ball out of the infield with the bases loaded and one out.  He didn’t execute even a sacrifice, dagnabbit!  Since he made an out, Primetime didn’t execute the Billy Beane Moneyball system either, but I was apparently mad at Deion for the wrong reasons.

Or was I?  I was amazed in the series versus the Tigers at how much the announcers railed against the A’s reluctance to steal.  To bunt runners over.  To do the things Detroit was doing (well except chain smoking like old Jimmy Leland).  Despite Oakland’s success during the regular season the past few years, they get unceremoniously bounced from the playoffs.  Usually in sweep fashion.  Moneyball blamed a “small sample size.”  That is, if the playoffs were, say, a 15-game series, the A’s would win 9 out of 10 times.  It’s like blaming the house in Vegas because you ran out of money before you could count enough cards in a six-shoe deck to win your rent for the month. 

I don’t know how to analyze this one.  On one hand, the A’s have done a lot with seemingly anonymous rosters sprinkled with castaway and stray cat free agents.  Yet they haven’t won in the playoffs.  Do they drop what got them there and start smallball like their opponents once the playoffs start? 

O

By Thaq Diesel

I just finished reading Moneyball, the study about the Oakland A’s and their success in reaching the playoffs despite having a smaller payroll.  The book rambled at length about Billy Beane in both positive and negative light.  The main thrust of the book was that statistical analysis was more important than baseball’s conventional wisdom.

One big case made by Moneyball was that making an out (e.g. a sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, caught stealing, etc…) was statistically worse for scoring runs (the lifeblood of winning baseball) than leaving the runner on base and trying to hit them in.  It also argued that taking pitches and on base percentage, that is taking walks, was much better than aggressive hitting. 

This flies in the face of many things that I have espoused on this website this year.  I once got incredibly angry at Deion Sanders (a Reds player at the time) in Riverfront Stadium because he couldn’t get the ball out of the infield with the bases loaded and one out.  He didn’t execute even a sacrifice, dagnabbit!  Since he made an out, Primetime didn’t execute the Billy Beane Moneyball system either, but I was apparently mad at Deion for the wrong reasons.

Or was I?  I was amazed in the series versus the Tigers at how much the announcers railed against the A’s reluctance to steal.  To bunt runners over.  To do the things Detroit was doing (well except chain smoking like old Jimmy Leland).  Despite Oakland’s success during the regular season the past few years, they get unceremoniously bounced from the playoffs.  Usually in sweep fashion.  Moneyball blamed a “small sample size.”  That is, if the playoffs were, say, a 15-game series, the A’s would win 9 out of 10 times.  It’s like blaming the house in Vegas because you ran out of money before you could count enough cards in a six-shoe deck to win your rent for the month. 

I don’t know how to analyze this one.  On one hand, the A’s have done a lot with seemingly anonymous rosters sprinkled with castaway and stray cat free agents.  Yet they haven’t won in the playoffs.  Do they drop what got them there and start smallball like their opponents once the playoffs start? 

By Thaq Diesel

I just finished reading Moneyball, the study about the Oakland A’s and their success in reaching the playoffs despite having a smaller payroll.  The book rambled at length about Billy Beane in both positive and negative light.  The main thrust of the book was that statistical analysis was more important than baseball’s conventional wisdom.

One big case made by Moneyball was that making an out (e.g. a sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, caught stealing, etc…) was statistically worse for scoring runs (the lifeblood of winning baseball) than leaving the runner on base and trying to hit them in.  It also argued that taking pitches and on base percentage, that is taking walks, was much better than aggressive hitting. 

This flies in the face of many things that I have espoused on this website this year.  I once got incredibly angry at Deion Sanders (a Reds player at the time) in Riverfront Stadium because he couldn’t get the ball out of the infield with the bases loaded and one out.  He didn’t execute even a sacrifice, dagnabbit!  Since he made an out, Primetime didn’t execute the Billy Beane Moneyball system either, but I was apparently mad at Deion for the wrong reasons.

Or was I?  I was amazed in the series versus the Tigers at how much the announcers railed against the A’s reluctance to steal.  To bunt runners over.  To do the things Detroit was doing (well except chain smoking like old Jimmy Leland).  Despite Oakland’s success during the regular season the past few years, they get unceremoniously bounced from the playoffs.  Usually in sweep fashion.  Moneyball blamed a “small sample size.”  That is, if the playoffs were, say, a 15-game series, the A’s would win 9 out of 10 times.  It’s like blaming the house in Vegas because you ran out of money before you could count enough cards in a six-shoe deck to win your rent for the month. 

I don’t know how to analyze this one.  On one hand, the A’s have done a lot with seemingly anonymous rosters sprinkled with castaway and stray cat free agents.  Yet they haven’t won in the playoffs.  Do they drop what got them there and start smallball like their opponents once the playoffs start? 

Or

By Thaq Diesel

I just finished reading Moneyball, the study about the Oakland A’s and their success in reaching the playoffs despite having a smaller payroll.  The book rambled at length about Billy Beane in both positive and negative light.  The main thrust of the book was that statistical analysis was more important than baseball’s conventional wisdom.

One big case made by Moneyball was that making an out (e.g. a sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, caught stealing, etc…) was statistically worse for scoring runs (the lifeblood of winning baseball) than leaving the runner on base and trying to hit them in.  It also argued that taking pitches and on base percentage, that is taking walks, was much better than aggressive hitting. 

This flies in the face of many things that I have espoused on this website this year.  I once got incredibly angry at Deion Sanders (a Reds player at the time) in Riverfront Stadium because he couldn’t get the ball out of the infield with the bases loaded and one out.  He didn’t execute even a sacrifice, dagnabbit!  Since he made an out, Primetime didn’t execute the Billy Beane Moneyball system either, but I was apparently mad at Deion for the wrong reasons.

Or was I?  I was amazed in the series versus the Tigers at how much the announcers railed against the A’s reluctance to steal.  To bunt runners over.  To do the things Detroit was doing (well except chain smoking like old Jimmy Leland).  Despite Oakland’s success during the regular season the past few years, they get unceremoniously bounced from the playoffs.  Usually in sweep fashion.  Moneyball blamed a “small sample size.”  That is, if the playoffs were, say, a 15-game series, the A’s would win 9 out of 10 times.  It’s like blaming the house in Vegas because you ran out of money before you could count enough cards in a six-shoe deck to win your rent for the month. 

I don’t know how to analyze this one.  On one hand, the A’s have done a lot with seemingly anonymous rosters sprinkled with castaway and stray cat free agents.  Yet they haven’t won in the playoffs.  Do they drop what got them there and start smallball like their opponents once the playoffs start? 

1976 World Series – Game One
October 16, 1976 at Riverfront Stadium
Reds 5, Yankees 1  Reds Lead Best of Seven Series 1-0

The Reds continued their post season run with a game one win over the Yankees.  Don Gullett threw a great game and gave up only a single run in the second inning.  Pedro Borbon finished the game up and threw 1 2/3 perfect innings.

Joe Morgan hit a solo homerun off of Doyle Alexander in the first inning to give the Reds an early lead.  The Yankees tied it up with a run in the second but in the third inning, a Dave Concepcion triple was followed up with a Pete Rose sac. fly to give the Reds a 2-1 lead.

The Reds added a run in the sixth on Tony Perez’s RBI single to make it 3-1.  They then scored two more in the seventh when Johnny Bench tripled home George Foster, and then later scored on a wild pitch.

It was the Reds fourth straight playoff win of the season and their fifth dating back to game seven of the 1975 World Series.  Tomorrow’s match up was Jim “Cat Fish” Hunter going up against Fred Norman.

« Previous Entries | Next Entries »

Powered by
WordPress