0 comments Rob Rossi Has Some Strong Opinions Not Necessarily Supported by Facts or His Own Opinion

The Pittsburgh Pirates lost to the Chicago Cubs in the terrible, no-good one game Wild Card playoff. Rob Rossi thinks this is an important offseason for the Pirates, but he also thinks some of the Pirates best players are probably at-fault for this one game playoff loss. Rob Rossi states Gerrit Cole is not good enough and Andrew McCutchen has too many earrings. His takes are all overreactions and a sad attempt to simply blame someone, ANYONE, for the Pirates failings in the ridiculous one game Wild Card playoff.

I'll start first with Rossi's issues about Gerrit Cole just not being good enough for the Pirates. He's a bum and the city of Pittsburgh deserves much than him.

More winning. Less jawing. And better pitching.

The Pirates need all of that in the biggest games from Gerrit Cole. 

While admitting that Gerrit Cole didn't pitch his best against the Cubs, let's also understand that the Pirates scored zero runs. Gerrit Cole could have thrown a nine inning perfect game and the Pirates still would not have beaten the Cubs without the game going to extra innings. So blame Cole, but also understand the Pirates' batters didn't score any runs for Cole. He can't win a game if his offense doesn't score a run.

Cole was horrendous and the reason the Pirates never were in position to win a National League wild-card game they lost to the Chicago Cubs, 4-0.

He needed to stick around for more than five innings.

He needed to not allow a first-inning run, then a two-run homer in the third and a solo shot in the fifth.

He needed more first-pitch strikes. 

Cole could have stuck around for nine innings, allowed zero home runs, and thrown a first-pitch strike to every single better he faced. It wouldn't have mattered because Jake Arrieta gave up zero runs too. 

No, the Pirates didn't go out there and give it to the Cubs. Cole did, though.

His margin for error was not slim. It was none. 

And of course, because his margin for error was none then it is Cole's fault the Pirates lost the one game Wild Card playoff. The fact Cole didn't pitch well was unfortunate. The issue is that even if Cole pitched extraordinarily, it still wouldn't have even mattered. The Pirates were going to lose the game because they couldn't score runs against Jake Arrieta. The fact Gerrit Cole could have given up zero runs and pitched nine innings, yet still not win the game, reflects on his team as much as giving up four runs in five innings reflects on him. 

As soon as he gave up that first run, the Pirates were done. Cole gave up that first run before he recorded an out. 

Doesn't this say something about the Pirates hitters as well? If Cole gives up one run and the Pirates have lost, is it really his fault the Pirates lost because he gave up a run? 

Another postseason blacked-out crowd would have been better off had Cole never stepped onto the mound. Or if ceremonial first-pitcher Bob Walk had stayed on the mound. 

Walk's career postseason record: 1-4, 4.50 ERA, 1.143 WHIP.

Cole's career postseason record: 1-2, 3.94 ERA, 0.875 WHIP.

Seems like Walk wasn't exactly much better than Cole has been in the postseason.

Aces flip the switch. Aces don't flip out.

Cole isn't an ace. He's the Pirates' best starting pitcher. 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOHHH! Tough burn there. Gerrit Cole is only the best pitcher on a team of elite baseball players. That must suck.

There is a big difference. 

A huge difference. The difference being a pitcher isn't considered an ace until he wins a big game and the media anoints him an "ace." Cole was 19-8 this season with 208 innings over 32 starts with a 1.091 WHIP, 2.66 ERA and ERA+ of 148. I don't know, I think I would consider that to be an ace. 

Had the Pirates an ace, they might have played more baseball each of these last three Octobers.

An ace, St. Louis' Adam Wainwright, took them out two years ago.

An ace, San Francisco's Madison Bumgarner, took them out last year.

An ace, Chicago's Jake Arrieta, just took them out again. 

I'm guessing that Rob Rossi knows baseball is a team game. What's funny is the second article I post here from Rossi is where he tears into the Pirates batting lineup for not scoring enough runs in the postseason. So it's Cole's fault that Wainwright, Bumgarner and Arrieta have shut the Pirates out in the postseason over the last three years? The Pirates keep running into really hot pitchers who are able to shut them out. But again, it's more simple to blame Gerrit Cole AND blame the Pirates batting lineup in separate articles. That way no reader gets confused and may think pushing blame on to one person is ridiculous and sees through Rossi's act. His "act" being that he individually blames Gerrit Cole for the Pirates loss in the one game Wild Card playoff, while also blaming the Pirates batting lineup for not scoring enough runs. He has to separate them out so it's harder to see the idiocy of individually blaming Cole.

The Pirates have scored one run in their past three postseason games. Two of those were wild-card contests. The other was on the road in a decisive Game 5 of the division series. 

And of course, this is probably Gerrit Cole's fault too. How come Gerrit Cole can't pitch every playoff game and throw a shutout in every game? He's not an ace if he can't do this. 

Top-end talent is what plays when a season is on the line, and the Pirates aren't competitive at postseason baseball's most important position. 

Which for the purposes of this column is starting pitching. In his next column, Rossi will claim the most important position in baseball is first base, which is why he advocates for the Pirates to trade for a power-hitting first baseman so they can finally win a playoff series and get to the World Series. What's important for the Pirates to succeed will change depending on the point Rossi wants to prove. 

That would be starting pitching.

The Giants.

The Cardinals.

The Dodgers.

The Cubs.

Those clubs can throw aces. Right now. 

Well, the Giants can't throw aces right now because they aren't in the playoffs. Regardless if the Pirates can throw a string of Hall of Famers at opposing teams or a string of pitchers who haven't pitched above Triple-A, it doesn't matter as long as the Pirates offense can't score runs. 

Cole might become one. Cole probably will become one.

Rob Rossi earlier in this column: 

Aces flip the switch. Aces don't flip out.

Cole isn't an ace.

So what's the suggestion by Rossi to fix this? Gerrit Cole isn't an ace, but will probably become one. So he's not good enough for the Pirates right now? What if he turns into an ace next year, you know, since he's probably going to end up being an ace and all? Will he be good enough for the Pirates at that point?

The ridiculousness of saying Cole is not an ace, so the Pirates need to find an ace so they can win a playoff series and then writing, "Cole will probably become an ace" can not be understated. It's a poorly-thought out and constructed column designed only to get a reaction. In that aspect, Rob Rossi has had great success.

He's 25 and has pitched fewer than three full seasons.

He'll be great. 

Great or just the Pirates best pitcher? Because THERE'S A DIFFERENCE!

He just might not be great enough in time for the Pirates to win while Andrew McCutchen is still great. 

Oh by the way, for the purposes of this column Andrew McCutchen IS great. In the next column Rossi writes, McCutchen will no longer be great and he's a guy who needs to start delivering in the postseason. Again, Rossi takes whatever position he needs to take at that very moment without a single thought of how he contradicts himself over time. 

Or even while McCutchen is still a Pirate.

And that's a big problem. 

McCutchen is a free agent after the 2018 season. I have a feeling Cole will be considered an "ace" at that point, but what good is all of this if the Pirates can't score runs? Gerrit Cole may not have been the pitcher for the Pirates that Arrieta was for the Cubs this year, but putting blame on him for the offense's failures is ridiculous. Even if Cole had pitched a perfect nine innings the Pirates still couldn't have beaten Arrieta and the Cubs. 

Rossi then continues writing his Plaschke-esque one sentence paragraphs (perhaps Plaschke is his idol? They seem to have the same reactionary "let's make a huge issue where there isn't one" type of writing style when the local team fails) where he provides some advice to Neal Huntington about the Pirates "reboot" this offseason. Rossi is apparently bothered by the earrings that Andrew McCutchen wears and thinks he's not clutchy.

So no, it won't be easy. But this is what Huntington should do between now and next Opening Day:

• Re-sign J.A. Happ to replace A.J. Burnett as the No. 3 starter. 

Gerrit Cole isn't good enough for the Pirates, but paying up for a 33 year old starter with a career ERA of 4.13, a guy who has never thrown for more than 172 innings in a season (and did it this year in his contract year...that NEVER happens), and has a career WHIP of 1.367 is just a brilliant idea. How could re-signing a career 4th or 5th starter as the Pirates 3rd starter after he has had a career year EVER be a bad idea? There are so many red flags around J.A. Happ in my mind, but I'm not the expert that Rob Rossi is. Gerrit Cole is just the Pirates best pitcher, while J.A. Happ is a third starter. 

• Trade closer Mark Melancon to Anaheim for Hector Santiago, who can become the fourth starter. 

Who give a fuck if the Angels want to do this trade or not? Just fucking do it without the Angels approval. Get Rob Manfred on the phone to approve the trade now. 

• Remind every American League club that Pedro Alvarez's big bat is back. 

Because when requesting the Pirates find more offense, it's good to trade a player with a "big bat" that is still under team control until after the 2017 season. 

"The Pirates need more offense! Trade one of their best home run hitters!"

If only Alvarez could handle a corner infield position.

If only the National League would adopt the designated-hitter rule. 

Two straight one sentence paragraphs. It's not totally infuriating, but is definitely slightly infuriating to me. Don't write like a seven year old writes. Try writing full paragraphs.

If only Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band would get back on the road. 

A baseball sportswriters who loves Bruce Springsteen? I don't believe it at all. Can this be true? Baseball sportswriters rarely love Bruce Springsteen. 

The Pirates can't keep dancing in the dark when it comes to Alvarez. 

GET IT? IT'S A BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN SONG REFERENCE SLIPPED COVERTLY INTO A TAKE ABOUT WHAT A WORTHLESS FIELDER PEDRO ALVAREZ IS! THIS IS PROFESSIONAL SPORTSWRITING PEOPLE, PLEASE STEP BACK!

He can't field, but the light is back on when it comes to his power. 

If only there were a Journey reference in this column I could say if Alvarez goes to San Francisco and hits poorly "When the lights go down in the city and sun shines on the bay" is the time when Alvarez joined the Giants.  

An excellent home run-to-fly ball ratio (HR/FB) is at or above 20 percent. Alvarez is 22.5 percent for his career, and he was 10 percent better than that this past season. 

Well that's certainly not fluky at all. I'm sure Alvarez will continue to hit 10% better than his career average for the rest of his career. American League teams are stupid though. I'm sure they don't care about silly things like "statistics" or the idea of "regression." 

The return might not be great, but Huntington should be able to move Alvarez to an AL peer whose need is a DH. 

Again, just force an AL team to trade for him. Might as well ask Rob Manfred to force this trade through while you are on the phone with him about forcing through the Hector Santiago trade. 

Move on to the answer for the question people are starting to ask. 

"People" being defined as "Rob Rossi and select sports radio callers who are idiots." Two people ask the question and all of a sudden "people" are starting to ask questions. 

Why isn't Andrew McCutchen an MVP-caliber player in the postseason? 

Isn't this article about how the Pirates don't have good hitters in the lineup and they need to improve the pitching staff and their hitting? Well, there is your answer why McCutchen might not hit well in smaller sample sizes against better teams. McCutchen is hitting .321/.441/.357 for his career in the postseason by the way. 

No home runs.

No RBIs.

No big moments. 

He does have six at-bats in 34 plate appearances. His playoff walk rate is 17.6%, while his career walk rate (with a much larger sample of course) is 12.1%. It seems like he either has a better eye in the postseason or he's not getting a ton to hit when he comes up to the plate. 

Criticism of his underwhelming Octobers is fair, deserved and no different than what is directed at the Penguins' Sidney Crosby and the Steelers' Ben Roethlisberger. 

Sure, criticize him for his lack of power. It makes sense, but he's still getting on-base. He's just not hitting for power. 

Crosby owns a championship ring.

Roethlisberger owns two championship rings.

McCutchen owns earrings. 

It may be best to go back in time and just delete these three sentences/paragraphs (for Rob Rossi, a sentence is a paragraph apparently), because this is an embarrassment. Andrew McCutchen is by all accounts a really nice guy and Rossi has to make a snide comment about him having "earrings" as opposed to championship rings. What a joke. 

The Pirates have jumped overboard with all their “Ps.”

Pride is great.

Passion is wonderful.

Postseason is fun.

Passable is old. 

And it's all Gerrit Cole's fault! Wait, this isn't the column where Cole is getting blamed? 

(Rossi checks his notes) 

Oh yeah, it's all Andrew McCutchen's fault because he hasn't produced big moments, big hits and has earrings. Well, it's not really his fault, but for the sake of argument and the need for attention let's pretend that it is.

That last “P” word is the best adjective to describe the first basemen and cleanup hitters who have played with McCutchen. 

And this obviously has nothing to do with the Pirates scoring 1 run in their last three postseason games nor does it have anything to do with why Andrew McCutchen hasn't produced big moments. It seems that Rossi's reasoning for the Pirates struggles revolves entirely around the lineup, yet he feels the need to blame individuals because that's what gets the attention. 

As evidence, the prosecution points to the Pirates' lineup for this year's National League wild-card game.

Role player Sean Rodriguez started at first base. Free swinger Starling Marte batted fourth. 

And McCutchen only went 2-4 in the Wild Card game. If he had only hit five home runs, then the Pirates could have won the game and Gerrit Cole wouldn't be such a terrible pitcher. Cole would have gotten a win and become an ace. Andrew McCutchen is holding back Gerrit Cole's development as an ace for the Pirates. 

But, members of the jury, let's not stop at the latest wild-card lineup. 

I don't know why Rossi is doing a "fake attorney" bit, but I'm not playing along. 

In 2014, the Pirates placed Gabby Sanchez at first and Russell Martin in the cleanup spot.

In 2013, Justin Morneau filled both roles. 

Again, perhaps focus more on this and less on Cole and McCutchen's "struggles" in the postseason. It seems the reason for the Pirates not winning a playoff series can be found when looking at McCutchen's supporting cast. 

The prosecution would also like to introduce as evidence a couple of Chicago Cubs from Wednesday night: Kris Bryant, the No. 3 hitter, and behind him, first baseman Anthony Rizzo.

Why, yes, that 1-2 punch in the 3-4 holes did seem to rattle Gerrit Cole after the Cubs' leadoff hitter stole second base and scored in the first inning. 

Yes, Gerrit Cole was so rattled that in 8 plate appearances in the game Rizzo and Bryant managed to go 0-7 with a walk (and yes, I know other Pirates pitchers faced Rizzo and Bryant, but the point is Rossi is introducing these two players as evidence of what "real" #3 and #4 hitters are and they didn't hit as well as McCutchen did in the one game Wild Card playoff). I mean, Cole was scared shitless of these two players. Why can't the Pirates find a #3 hitter and #4 hitter like these two who come up big by not getting a single hit in the one game Wild Card? Instead, the Pirates are stuck with mediocre-ass Andrew McCutchen who struggles at the plate, going 2-4 in the one game Wild Card. 

“Everybody would like to have an anchor in the middle of their lineup in these type of games,” manager Clint Hurdle said Wednesday night. 

But why can't the Pirates just go find guys like this? It should be easy to do. 

They've managed to come this far without answers to two big questions that have been asked at the start, during and at the end of every season since McCutchen arrived.

Who's on first?

Who's batting fourth? 

Notice how this column went quietly from "Why can't McCutchen come up big?" to "Why aren't the players around McCutchen good enough?" Again, Rossi knows blaming McCutchen for not coming up big is a little silly, but he needs to get the attention comments about McCutchen's earrings will provide. 

Huntington has called this offseason “big.” He's underselling it.

It's huge.

Massive. Large. Mammoth. 

It all means about the same thing. They are called "synonyms" and I would think a J-school class probably discussed this at some point. Perhaps Rob Rossi was too busy checking out a classmates' earrings and was distracted during this portion of the lecture.

The Pirates could look to trade with a major league team, but all the best first basemen are going to cost at least a top prospect and probably two.

Probably. 

You are underselling it. It's potentially, perhaps even possibly. 

Huntington could always dangle Marte or Gregory Polanco. 

Oh yes, dangle the free-swinging Starling Marte. He's not good enough for the Pirates, but he's good enough to get a great first baseman back in return through a trade. 

And he should, presuming the Pirates' don't win the rights to Park. Josh Harrison can step into one of the corner outfield spots immediately. 

This is the same Josh Harrison who has slashed .284/.318/.417 with 24 home runs in 1470 at-bats during his career. In the search for a cleanup hitter, it's best to replace a guy who hit 19 home runs last year with a guy who 4 home runs last year. That'll fix everything.

The Pirates have scored two runs in their past four postseason games, all losses.

McCutchen was 1 for 15 with a walk in those games.

He needs protection behind him, not two dreamers in front of him. 

I mean, Josh Harrison could very well be that corner outfielder the Pirates are looking for. Where will he fit in the lineup? Nowhere that Rob Rossi states needs help, because he can't hit cleanup nor can he play first base, but dangle Starling Marte, lose a few home runs in the outfield and then get that great power hitting first baseman the Pirates need so badly. I mean, this great hitting first baseman would have to hit 15 more home runs than Pedro Alvarez hit last year to make up for the loss of Alvarez and Marte (replacing Marte with Harrison in the outfield, 15 home runs are left on the table and then the Pirates trade Alvarez...therefore to replace the power production of Marte and Alvarez the new first baseman would have to hit 15 more home runs than Alvarez did), but I'm sure that won't be an issue. First basemen who hit 40+ homers are easy to find, right? 

Protection is always costly.

Nobody ever regretted paying that cost, though. 

"Nobody" ever regretted paying that cost? You may want to check with the Padres before making this statement. I'm pretty sure they are one of a few teams who have regretted paying for lineup protection. 

Huntington shouldn't hesitate to invest in what remains of McCutchen's prime.

Whatever the cost, it's worth it for the Pirates finally to find that first baseman who can bat fourth. 

And then, once the Pirates find a first baseman who can bat cleanup, this means Gerrit Cole and Andrew McCutchen will no longer be useless bums. Cole will magically turn into an ace and McCutchen will start producing magic moments. It's weird how their teammates improvement will make them individually seen as better baseball players. 

Then let's see what their franchise player can do in a fourth postseason.

He'll probably just hit singles and spend his time on the bench looking online for earrings at fancy jewelry shops in the Pittsburgh area. You know how McCutchen do.

1 comments Terence Moore Writes The Annual Column Where He Gleefully Lauds the One Game Wild Card Playoff Presented by Budweiser

Terence Moore hates new ideas and new things. Not shockingly, if that new idea comes from Major League Baseball, all of a sudden Terence will think it's a great idea. After all, Terence writes for MLB.com. Of course, they would never edit him or stop him writing something, even it were a column arguing against a new MLB rule. Sure, I believe that. So nearly every year Terence writes a column about how great the one game Wild Card playoff is. As everyone knows by now, I hate the one game Wild Card playoff. It's exciting, sure, but I think it should be a three game playoff and don't understand why one more game is enough after a 162 game season to decide which Wild Card team gets to appear in the NLDS/ALDS. Terence Moore disagrees because that's what he is paid to do.

If you're a baseball fan who lives for October more than any other month of the season, you're thinking like me.

I'm a baseball fan and I really doubt that I am thinking like Terence Moore. Terence is probably thinking about the Big Red Machine and how they would undoubtedly could still beat a team made up of 2015 MLB All-Stars.

There is just too much time between now and the start of the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser next week.

Not that Terence is a shill for MLB.com or anything like that when he talks about the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser. When discussing the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser, Terence can write what he wants when he wants to write it. If Terence says he doesn't like the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser, then he doesn't have to like the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser. It's simply the opinion of Terence Moore that he writes in a column presented by MLB.com. 

We should enjoy the ride this weekend through the end of the regular season. Afterward, with one more day to go, we should unleash a sigh of relief as the Yankees make their first trip to the postseason in three years as the likely hosts of the Astros, Angels or Twins on Tuesday night in the American League Wild Card Game.

And the teams will battle in a one game playoff that will negate everything that team accomplished throughout the season. It will turn a 162 game season into an ace-off where the team with the best starting pitcher gets to go into the next round of the playoffs. Baseball may be a team game, but don't tell that to MLB or the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser. 

As for the National League, the Cubs will probably play their winner-take-all game on the road against the Pirates, but that won't happen until Wednesday. What a tease, especially since you know the showdown between these two gifted teams is destined for instant-classic territory.

Was it an instant classic? I don't think it was. It was a great pitching performance by Jake Arrieta, but it wasn't an instant classic. Though I understand that Terence has to do everything in his power to make it seem like the Wild Card Games that are presented by Budweiser are nothing if not totally epic. 

You also know both Wild Card Games will feature intensity. Every inning, every pitch, every millisecond will be huge. The winners advance to the Division Series, and the losers are just done.

You know, I heard this could happen in a three game Wild Card series as well. Three games would test the depth and actual starting pitching strength of each team, which I know isn't something baseball is interested in after playing a 162 game schedule where a team's record is determined by the depth and starting pitching strength of each team, but it could be a pretty interesting three game Wild Card series presented by Miller Lite.

In a three game series, the winners still advance to the Division Series and the losers are still done. It's just a series that isn't determined by which team has the better ace.

So here's my humble assessment of baseball's current Wild Card system, which is entering its fourth season: It works just fine, thank you.

What? This is a shocking conclusion. Terence has written every year around the end of the baseball season, not by directive from MLB.com of course, that the Wild Card system works great and he still believes this is true this year? What a turn of events. 

There isn't a thing I would change.

And as a self-described "traditionalist" who didn't exactly love it when the first Wild Card was introduced, Terence saying there isn't a thing he would change about the one game Wild Card presented by Budweiser makes total sense. 

Still, many around the game and beyond want a best-of-three series to decide which of the two Wild Card teams in each league would reach the Division Series, where they would face the team with the best record in the regular season.

It would determine which team was better after a 162 game season. After all those games, I just don't like that a playoff spot comes down to one game. I feel like baseball is a team sport where the best teams have depth on their bench and in their starting pitching staff. I don't feel a one game Wild Card presented by Budweiser does justice in reflecting this. 

Cubs president of baseball operations Theo Epstein goes further than that. He told the Chicago Tribune in September that he proposed a best-of-three Wild Card series in which the opening games for each league would be part of a day-night doubleheader for the host team.

I can see that and I think it would be fun. I lean towards just having three games in three days at the home team's park, but a doubleheader would fun. The ironic part is that I bet the old-timers who bitch about there not being enough doubleheaders during the season would complain this is too far away from the traditional postseason format.

But extending the postseason would not help baseball end the World Series on a reasonable date each fall. This season, a potential Game 7 would occur on Nov. 4.

This is easily one of the worst reasons to not move the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser to a a three game series. It's a horseshit excuse. The MLB season lasts from April to the very beginning of November over 162 games, but the potential of there being TWO MORE GAMES is just too unreasonable to be seriously considered. Here's a good idea. Move the season to 154 games. Problem solved. Again, the funny part about this is you would find traditionalists bitching about the move away from 162 games in order to fit in a new playoff format, even though the season would be moved back to 154 games. This is how many games were played back in the day when everything in baseball was perfect, the same age many traditionalist sportswriters harken back to.

I find it hilarious two more games, thereby being two more days of baseball, is just incredibly unreasonable. This from a league that has 162 games per year.

Translated: Just leave the current Wild Card setup alone. With a one-game decider in each league to start October, you have zero scheduling concerns.

Again, this is a remarkably weak excuse for keeping the one game Wild Card presented by Budweiser. After 162 games, scheduling concerns for two more games is the reason? Come on. 

Mostly, single Wild Card Games create drama like crazy.

Then make the Divisional Series, the Championship Series, and the World Series one game series as well. They can even be presented by another beer company. If drama is the intent, then make every series a one game series. So is Terence arguing the World Series isn't dramatic enough with a seven game series? Is the intent of the playoffs to create drama or find out who the best MLB team is? If you want drama, every series should be one game. If you want to know who the best team is, eliminate the second Wild Card presented by Chase and use the 162 games each team plays on the season to make this determination, or make the Wild Card series a three game series. 

Remember 2012 in Atlanta? The Cardinals slid past the Braves that night due to an infield fly call that the hometown fans thought resembled an "outfield fly."

Really? The first example of the drama created is an example that shows the incompetence of MLB's umpires to discern what is and is not an "infield fly"? If MLB thinks incompetent umpires are part of "the drama" then that explains why they allowed Eric Gregg to continue umping after the 1997 playoffs and why no one has done anything about Joe West's act. Drama created by incompetence doesn't seem like the best way to convince me to love the one game Wild Card presented by Budweiser.

There also was last year's AL Wild Card thriller in Kansas City. Somehow, the Royals overcame two late-game deficits, including one of 7-3 in the eighth. They shocked the A's in the bottom of the 12th, and that was four hours and 45 minutes after the first pitch.

And this game would have still have been played if the Wild Card was a three game series. It's just these same two teams would have had the chance to play AGAIN the next day to determine which team earns the right to make it to the ALDS. 

Just like that, a Royals team that hadn't reached the postseason in 29 years did more than advance to the Division Series. Kansas City won the pennant and the hearts of America, starting with its survival in that wildest of Wild Card Games.

And in a three game series the Royals still would have had the chance to make it to the Division Series and continue to win the hearts of America. 

"[The Wild Card setup is] fine the way it is now," Epstein also told the Chicago Tribune. "You can never come up with a scenario that's perfectly fair to everybody.

This is an absolutely true statement that is coming from a GM who has perhaps the best pitcher in the majors ready to go in the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser with help from Chase in association with FanDuel provided by Goodyear. Epstein feels great with Arrieta starting the Wild Card game because he has been untouchable, so of course he thinks it's fine as it is now. There is no fair scenario, but I think there is a scenario that better reflects baseball is a team game.

Epstein's Cubs, by the way, are blessed with a wonderful "hand," and it is attached to the right arm of Jake Arrieta. Among other things, no pitcher in baseball history has looked more dominant than Arrieta during the second half of a season with an 11-1 record and a 0.80 ERA entering Friday. His overall numbers are also impressive (21-6, 1.82 ERA, 229 strikeouts through 223 innings).

Now consider this: In five starts this season against the Pirates, Arrieta is 3-1 with a 0.75 ERA, and he'll start next week's Wild Card Game.

And that's fantastic for the Cubs. Arrieta is awesome. It does prove my point that the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser becomes an "ace-off" with the team that has the best pitcher having the best chance to win the game. I prefer baseball as a team game where a playoff series winner is determined by the strength of that team's starting pitching staff, not just the strength of one pitcher. 

Advantage: Cubs.

Yes, it is advantage Cubs. After 162 games, whichever team has the better starting pitcher wins the game. I think a better set up is possible. 

Or is it?

Yes, it was advantage to the Cubs.

The Pirates will counter with Gerrit Cole, and while he isn't Arrieta, he's fabulous enough at 19-8 with a 2.60 ERA. Not only that, Cole is a noted Cubs killer. In nine starts against the North Siders, he has lost just once with seven victories and a 2.88 ERA.

Gerrit Cole is a great pitcher. He was not as great as Jake Arrieta was. That's fine, the Cubs deserved to win that game, but I wish it were possible to make it a three game series. 

We haven't even mentioned the pending battle involving Chicago sluggers Kris Bryant and Anthony Rizzo against Pirates standouts Andrew McCutchen, Starling Marte and the rest. 

And these guys will still "battle" if there is a three game series. Why would fewer games of these four players "battling" be a bad thing? Terence using these four players as an example of the greatness of the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser contradicts his point about the one game Wild Card being fine. This is because in a three game Wild Card series these four players would "battle" for possibly two more games. More fun! More drama! Why is this bad?

You also know Joe Maddon will keep things interesting on and off the field as the Cubs' manager and master psychologist.

Joe Maddon would also be present for all three games in a three game Wild Card series. Joe Maddon doesn't magically disappear into thin air if the Cubs have to play three games against the Pirates to earn the right to play in the NLDS. 

See what I mean by Wild Card drama?

See what I mean by nothing changing and the drama would still be there? Saying, "These players and this manager will make for a fun time and make things interesting" isn't an argument for the current Wild Card set up. It's an argument to watch the Wild Card series, no matter how long of a series it may be. How did Terence Moore get to become a writer who gets to pen columns that are intended to be somewhat persuasive? 

The same goes for the AL, where the Angels would put one of baseball's faces on national display in Mike Trout, and Trout has a noted slugging partner named Albert Pujols. If it's the Twins or the Astros instead of the Angels, we're talking about a bunch of talented youngsters to keep us entertained. 

These players would all still be participating in a three game series. I don't understand what the fuck Terence is trying to prove here. 

In addition, Houston has Dallas Keuchel, a wonderful starting pitcher who leads the AL in victories (19) and innings pitched (226).

Yes, he is wonderful and fans will get to see him pitching wonderfully against the Yankees. Then fans can see Scott Kazmir and/or Colin McHugh pitch wonderfully against the Yankees. Then I can rest easy knowing the Astros used more than one pitcher to prove they deserve to make the ALDS after a 3 game series and 162 game season. 

The Yankees are just the Yankees, and that's enough.

And yet, over the span of one game played after 162 other games were played it wasn't enough. 

So is one Wild Card Game.

Just like the one Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser is not enough. Shorten the season if needed (it's pretty freaking long anyway, even if it were 154 games) and then make the Wild Card series a three game series. I think it best represents the team game that baseball has shown itself to be. 

3 comments Paul Daugherty Seems to Dislike the Sport He is Paid to Cover; Also Still Hates Adam Dunn

Some sportswriters seem to hate the sports they cover. Just off the top of my head I can think of guys like Jay Mariotti, Mike Lupica, and Phil Mushnick as three guys who just seem to hate sports, but enjoy the paycheck it provides to them. I think I can add Paul Daugherty to that list when it comes to covering baseball. It's not that he doesn't have a right to complain about the length of baseball games, it is that he treats the playoff games with such disdain as if the length of a playoff game is just one more reason to hate the sport of baseball. Daugherty makes the astute observation that baseball games are too long. Why hasn't anyone else complained about this before? This is totally new information to anyone who likes baseball! Also, as we will later learn, Paul Daugherty still hates Adam Dunn.

The Kansas City Royals aren't a baseball team. They're an unintentional rain delay.

But seriously, folks...

They haven't played an October baseball game in less than three hours, 38 minutes. Four of their six playoff games have consumed at least four hours.

And the games have mostly been exciting too! This only makes it worse though. Don't bore Paul Daugherty with exciting baseball games, just get them over with so he can get back to watching his "Criminal Minds" re-runs. 

Of course, until this year, the Royals hadn't played an October game of any sort since 1985. Maybe they're just taking it all in. 

Or maybe they had played four extra inning games when Paul Daugherty wrote this column. Pretty much any time a sporting event goes to extra time then that sporting event will last longer than it normally does. The Panthers-Bengals game that ended in a tie started at 1pm EST and ended around 5:00pm EST. That's a pretty long football game.

The Baltimore Orioles ought to be dog-tired. Maybe even as tired as baseball fans who've watched them play four hours, 37 minutes and four hours, 17 minutes in their last two games. 

Baseball games can be long, especially ones that goes into extra innings, and especially playoff games. Feel free to not watch them. 

Watching a manager think. What fun.  

Maybe you should go find another job that doesn't involve watching sports and watching a manager think. I can tell you the only thing worse than watching a manager think is hearing a sportswriter who makes his money from watching a manager think bitch about watching a manager think.  

In New York, Major League Baseball has appointed a committee to study why baseball games now take longer than trips to the moon.

Hey Paul, it's 2014. Trips to the moon don't happen anymore, so you may want to find a better comparison to how long baseball games last. Perhaps they last longer than my patience for dealing with your crotchety complaining about the time of baseball games. That's not a high threshold to clear though.

Committee members will spend lots of time walking around the room, adjusting their neckties, testing the wax buildup on the conference room floor, uttering practice words, shaking off others' practice words and staring blankly into space.

Of course, members will also have to take a few pitches, too. 

The irony of Paul Daugherty killing time and space in a column that has one basic premise which can be summed up in a paragraph, while complaining about how baseball players kill time while at-bat is delicious to me.

Look at it this way: Baseball is a game to enjoy while you're enjoying something else. A nap, for instance, or the detailed assemblage of a nuclear device.

How many times can Daugherty restate the same point? I guess we'll see. If you don't enjoy the sport of baseball then don't watch it. Few things are worse than hearing a sportswriter who hates the sports he covers bitch about covering that sport.

Theoretically, you could begin watching a postseason tilt at 8, take a break at 9 to hitch-hike across China, get a new lung, floss, carve a pumpkin and read a little Tolstoy and still be back to watch the last couple innings. 

Yes, the playoff baseball games are long, unlike the premise this column is built upon. I will flip channels while watching baseball games if I am at home, but mostly because I hate commercials. A better writer would offer several solutions to speed up the game he hates so much, as opposed to just bitching and moaning about how long the games are. A lesser writer, like a writer that Paul Daugherty seems to be, just complains and suggests an improvement that has already happened. What are suggestions to pick up the pace of the game? If you are bitching and not creating solutions then what's your point? 

What if you're not a fan?

Then I don't watch the whole game. The same thing I do if I am watching any sport and I'm not a fan of either participant in that game. 

What if your rooting interest trends more in the general direction of getting some sleep? 

Then I go the fuck to sleep and don't watch the game. See, there is nothing that says I have to watch an entire baseball game or watch any entire sporting event. It's fun to have control over my life and do what I want. 

I like baseball. I like it a lot. The older I get, the more I like it.

It's pretty clear you don't like baseball. Please don't lie. 

You actively watch the Bengals and Xavier or UC. The Reds? 

Actually, I find baseball to be more of a diversion than other sports because it moves at a slower pace. I can cook dinner, flip channels, do something else while watching it and don't feel like I constantly have to have my brain turned on when watching the game. So while I'm actually watching a baseball game, it's a diversion for me from the other stuff I have to do. Other sports I have to focus on entirely for a long period of time, so it doesn't feel as much like a diversion at times. I recognize I am weird in that way. 

There are nights, lots of them, between April and October when nothing else will do. 

That doesn't mean I'm not doing something else. 

Then do something else. That's the beauty of baseball. You can do something else while watching the game. It certainly sounds like you don't like the sport though. 

If you were a Bengals fan Sunday, can you imagine doing anything else between 1 and 5, when the game finally ended? That was four hours, too, just like a playoff baseball game. Those four hours were different than baseball's four hours.

If the Braves were in the playoffs, I would watch every minute of every playoff game. That's how it works when you love a sport and a team. I can't imagine doing anything different during those hours, unless the game conflicted with another sport, and then a decision has to be made. 

Baseball worries about losing young fans. It should. Kids whose attention spans are dictated by Twitter and Madden 2015 aren't hanging out by the flat screen for four hours for anything that doesn't come with a controller or a means to get on Facebook.

No, but young fans can get on Facebook while watching a baseball game. There's no doubt the game moves slow and improvements to pace of play should be made. Since Paul Daugherty gets paid to watch sports, it seems like a better column idea than simply bitching about pace of play is providing multiple suggestions to improve pace of play. 

And to think: Scoring is down in baseball. Fewer reasons to be excited, and more time not to be. Great job, baseball. 

Baseball writers when talking about PED users: "Steroids are ruining the integrity of the game! These steroid users have no place in baseball and shouldn't be earning money to play baseball. Get them out of the game forever! They are making a mockery of home run and scoring records!" 

Baseball writers when talking about how scoring is down: "Scoring is down! Baseball is losing the kids because no players are hitting home runs! Baseball needs to find a way to help teams score more runs and make the game more exciting like it used to be back in the Steroid Era!" 

More isn't better, unless chocolate is involved. More is just more.

Very deep. This should be inscribed on Paul Daughtery's tombstone when he dies of boredom from watching a baseball game.

Baseball needs to fix this. The logical answer is to shave commercial time, between innings and during the endless pitching changes. That won't happen.

Look, a solution! Not really, but this is about the best Daugherty can do. I think one of the best ways to speed up the pace of play is not give a pitcher warmup tosses when he enters the game, except in cases of injury to a pitcher. The pitcher is warmed up already from being in the bullpen, go out there and throw the baseball. It's a small improvement, but any improvement is an improvement. 

How about expanding the strike zone?

Actually Paul, that has already happened.

Way to make assumptions in lieu of research though. 

Better, how about enforcing it?

"Expand the strike zone, keep the strike zone like it is and just enforce the current strike zone, shrink the strike zone, don't have a strike zone and every pitch should be called a strike." 

Metrics have turned lots of hitters into ball-watching savants. Taking pitches, getting deep into counts, walking.

Obviously the pace of play issue is the fault of stat heads. Who else could be responsible? The same group who is constantly told, "What happens on the field matters, not your statistics! You can't measure what happens on the field!" are naturally responsible for what is happening on the field due to the use of the same metrics that can't measure or affect what happens on the field.

All have conspired to increase the number of pitches thrown. That by itself wouldn't be so bad, if batters and pitchers would stop preening, pondering and checking with their chiropractors between every pitch.

It's a conspiracy among stat heads to further ruin the game of baseball! Stat heads aren't satisfied with ruining the game by using metrics that suck the enjoyment out of the game, now they are brainwashing baseball players into taking a long time during each at-bat. 

Fattening the zone would make for more swings

The strike zone is already being fattened. 

Fewer walks, perhaps. Fewer strikeouts.

Wait, what? How would a more expanded strike zone result in fewer strikeouts? Wouldn't an expanded strike zone result in more strikeouts since more pitches will be called strikes? I know, I'm not as smart as Paul Daugherty, plus I actually like baseball, so perhaps I am completely incorrect. 

Fewer pitches. Fewer pitchers. Faster games. What we all want. Right?

I don't know if a large strike zone would result in fewer pitchers. But again, data shows (yes, data, so I understand that Daugherty may think this information is part of the conspiracy to ruin baseball) that the strike zone is expanding. 

Meantime, mainline that Monster, ballfan. Rev up the Rockstar. The playoffs are on. See you in four hours.

It's okay to just admit you don't like one of the sports you cover. Playoff games take forever and the games should be sped up, but there's no sense in complaining about it if you are only going to suggest an "improvement" that is already happening and hasn't sped games up.

It's well-known that Paul Daugherty isn't a fan of Adam Dunn. So of course he couldn't allow Dunn to retire without getting a few more shots at him in.

ADAM DUNN IS A GREAT GUY AND WAS A TERRIFIC PLAYER. . . I wasn't going to hold forth on this topic. Guy's retired, hasn't played here in years. Let it go, Doc.

But this is something that just can't be "let go." Something has to be said about Adam Dunn and how he seems like a great guy, but is really ruining baseball.

Then I read this latest God-ding up of the B.D., in Sports Illustrated, in reference to Dunn's prodigious ability to K:

And Daugherty KNEW something had to be done. No one can write anything positive about Adam Dunn without the real truth being stated. Someone had to be brave enough to take shots at Dunn after he has retired.

"Each time he swung and missed on strike three was agonizing for him, and he did everything he could to drag himself out there the next at-bat, hoping for better results.''

Oh, please.

Yeah, Adam Dunn didn't care. How dare anyone suggest otherwise!

Man played 14 years. Struck out at least 159 times in 12 of 'em. Never changed his approach. Never shortened his stroke. Never tried. He was just up there, agonizing and hoping.

His approach worked pretty well for him. He hit home runs, he got on-base, and struck out a lot. Dunn was paid to hit home runs and get on-base, so shortening his stroke to avoid strikeouts didn't seem like the best of ideas.

Had a natural ability to hit a baseball 400 feet. Never worked at doing anything else. Too busy reading car magazines. 

What else was Dunn supposed to work at doing? Was he supposed to learn to woodworking or some other skill? The things Dunn was bad at, defense and having speed aren't really things that he could have worked too hard at improving. He's not an agile guy, so he isn't going to magically become a faster runner and better outfielder, and I'm sure he worked at becoming a better fielder...just not to Paul Daugherty's satisfaction.

 The numbers crowd has tried to make the argument that there's nothing egregious about striking out. These are some of the same people who get all tingly upon hearing the phrase "on-base percentage.'' 

Probably because the way baseball teams can score runs is by getting men on-base. A double down the line can't score a run unless there is a runner on-base. So it's nice to have players who get on-base at a fairly high clip.

No sale. Put the ball in play, give yourself and your team a chance. 

There is something to be said for putting the ball in play as well, but when a player like Adam Dunn is at-bat and he is someone with poor speed then putting the ball in play can also result in more outs because he doesn't have the speed to leg-out infield singles. I love players who put the ball in play, but a guy like Adam Dunn doesn't need to just get the ball in play so he can run to first base. He is relied on to drive in runs, get on-base, and hit home runs.

I'm not sure why everyone else was so enamored with Dunn. He was self deprecating, sure. Rip yourself first, so no one else feels the need. But he never wanted to be anything more than what he was. I like athletes who get the most from their ability. Or more. 

Who is to say that Adam Dunn didn't get the most from his ability? Changing his approach at the plate could easily have cut down on strikeouts, but also cut down on home runs and walks. Is playing the game of baseball the way Paul Daugherty wants Dunn to play the game "getting the most of his ability" or simply reducing one strength of Dunn's game to improve a weakness in Dunn's game?

Have a good one, BD. I'm sure you will. You're free from the BS game that made you very, very rich.

I feel so much better now.

You should feel better. Finally, Adam Dunn is being treated like the real asshole he is and no positive words spoken about Dunn's career are written without the proper retort.

In this article, which was written three hours prior to Daugherty writing the above article about baseball's pace of play issues, Daugherty basically wrote the entire previous column on how playoff games are too slow in a single paragraph:

MORE ISNT BETTER. MORE IS JUST MORE. The cool thing about the MLB postseason, I guess, is that you can start watching a game at 8, take a break at 9 to hitch-hike cross-country, design a nuclear device, floss, carve a pumpkin and read a little Tolstoy and still be back to watch the last couple innings.

He uses the same jokes in this column he will later use in his column written three hours later. To be fair, it seems using the same jokes is Paul "getting the most out of his ability" to write.

0 comments Jon Heyman Says People Are Being Really Mean to Ned Yost, Brad Ausmus and Don Mattingly, You Guys

There were some questionable decisions made in the AL Wild Game, NLDS and ALDS this past year. One of the favorite games of Twitter users is second-guessing a manager's decisions, especially when those decisions happen in the playoffs. Jon Heyman has written an article about how the Twitterverse was being super-mean to managers like Ned Yost and Don Mattingly, some of which he understands and other stuff he doesn't understand. Mostly managers need to get out of the way and not actively try to screw something up. Like don't have a "7th inning guy" and refuse to adjust your strategy when faced with circumstances that mean your "7th inning guy" may not be the best guy for the situation. Sometimes managing in the playoffs requires a different strategy than managing in the regular season, which isn't something some managers seem to understand. The truth is great decisions can turn out badly and dumb decisions can work out. Part of being a manager is being second-guessed, but a part of being a manager is making decisions that are the best decision under the circumstances, not being too rigid and hoping the result goes your way.

One thing about the managers this postseason: For good or bad, they can't seem to get out of the spotlight.

One would think since these managers are volunteers who don't draw a salary then the fans would lay off said managers as they actively make decisions that seem to harm their team. But no, fans insist on criticizing managers for making stupid decisions. The game is decided on the field, people. Lay off those who are making the decisions that affect the outcome of baseball games. It's out of line.

Royals manager Ned Yost has been criticized, ridiculed and otherwise made fun of – and he hasn't lost a single game yet.

This was written before the Division Series started, and by the grace of God and with a little luck, the Royals have not lost a game yet.

The Dodgers' Don Mattingly, the Tigers' Brad Ausmus and the Nats' Matt Williams, whose teams are all out now, also found themselves under the microscope, with the criticism overdone in some cases and, perhaps, not so much in others.

I don't know how not playing one of your best hitters in an elimination game, using the same bullpen that blew up the previous game, and having a "7th inning guy" while refusing to change for the playoffs can be overdone, but that's just me. Those are decisions that directly affect the outcome of playoff games.

Meanwhile, a couple other mangers have been lauded, or even almost deified.

How dare the public criticize managers who manage poorly and then laud those managers who make smart decisions! Every manager should be treated the same no matter what decisions he makes!

Don't you hate when Twitter is so mean they over-criticize a manager for his decisions and then compliment another manager for his decisions? The Twitterverse needs to quit being so mean, but then really nice at the same time.

The Cardinals' Mike Matheny also is being universally praised, as he seems to get the most out of a team whose best characteristic may be that it is mentally tough, like him. A Dodgers person lauded him for what that person saw as a stunt to delay the game when Matheny called for the home grounds crew to fix the mound as closer Trevor Rosenthal composed himself following a two-hit Dodgers rally, and a 2-and-0 count. If it was, it worked, as Rosenthal saved Game 3.

That Dodgers person? Probably Yasiel Puig, who only cares about himself and not about the Dodgers team. It's probably why he was benched for Game 4. Let's talk about what an asshole Puig is. Bill Plaschke can't get enough of it.

It's hard to recall a postseason where so much attention has been placed on managers and managerial moves -- for good or bad.

Part of the issue is some of these guys didn't have experience as a manager prior to being hired by their current team. It shows at times.

Some have said over the years, in fact, that managers aren't all that important, or even that the difference between an average one and a good one is pretty close to negligible.

This can be true. Then there are other times when B.J. Upton hits leadoff for a long period of time and Andrelton Simmons hits second for a long period of time and managers do start to make a difference.

But you wouldn't know anyone thinks that managers lack influence if you read Twitter, where complaints (and a couple rare compliments) have piled up against a handful of this year's postseason managers.

The point is that managers lack influence until they start to exert their influence by making pitching and lineup changes during a game. I hope Jon Heyman understands this. It's not that managers don't make a difference, it's that managers don't make a difference until they start making really smart or dumb decisions.

One of them has even inspired a hashtag, #Yosted, which refers to some supposed poor strategy by Yost, who got the ball rolling for second guessing these playoffs by inserting rookie starter Yordano Ventura into a key relief role in the wild card game. (While he was burned when Brandon Moss hit a three-run home run, the Royals escaped with a win and haven't lost since.)

Several things here that Jon Heyman leaves out in order to show he doesn't understand causation with that idiotic "the Royals won and haven't lost since" comment. 

1. Ventura isn't a relief pitcher. He has only pitched in relief during his career once. It's very different to start all year and then pitch in relief. The Wild Card game isn't the best time to make that transition for the second time in his career.

2. Ventura had thrown 73 pitches on Sunday and only had two days of rest. He may not have been tired, but he wasn't exactly rested when coming into the game during circumstances he isn't used to entering the game under.

3. Heyman is about to defend keeping Kershaw in Game 4 of the NLDS after throwing 93 pitches on three days rest, yet here Shields had thrown 88 pitches on normal rest and he is fine with him being pulled for "the gas" Yost so badly wanted from Ventura. This difference in opinion from Heyman doesn't make sense to me. Both decisions occurred in elimination games.

4. Brandon Moss hit a fucking home run. The decision ended up terribly. The game would not have gone to 12 innings if Yost didn't make this decision and have it backfire. Yet, because Heyman saw the Royals won the game he figures this was a good decision. It's like saying, "I threw gasoline on myself and lit myself on fire today, but it wasn't a bad decision because I got skin grafts and I am still alive. That proves my decision-making was sound."

5. The fact Ned Yost made a dumb decision and it worked simply isn't a reason to think it was a smart decision. I can't emphasize this enough. 

One club executive from the NL, speaking generally about the postseason, referred to some of the managing choices as nothing short of “terrible."

Another executive, from the AL, wailed, “What are these guys doing? They keep taking out their best pitchers for relievers, sometimes middle relievers. Even (Angels manager Mike Scioscia) did it. He took out a guy they're paying $15 million for a middle reliever after two outs.”

Yeah, but it's the Twitterverse that is really the big meanies for criticizing these managers.

I didn't have a huge issue with this decision because I don't think salary should play a part in which pitchers are on the mound, plus in an elimination game like this the manager needs to make sure his team doesn't get down by a lot of runs early. That means if a starter isn't pitching well from the outset then he may not get a chance to recover.

While Scioscia may get the benefit of a doubt, Ausmus and Williams, the rookie managers, seem to have much bigger targets on their backs. And Mattingly, being a big name with a talented team in a big town, well, criticism is par for the course for him.

It's not just making bad decisions, but going out of the way to make bad decisions. It's being stringent in situations where stringency is not required. It's keeping Craig Kimbrel in the bullpen in a tie game because you want to use him for a save situation as opposed to putting him on the mound in a crucial situation with runners on-base.

Ausmus had only the barest of managerial experience (he managed Team Israel in the WBC) when the Tigers hired him to replace the iconic Jim Leyland, and Williams had only served as a coach, not a manager, when the Nats tabbed him to take the place of the legendary veteran Davey Johnson.

I think their inexperience definitely plays a role in their decision-making. They know what worked for them previously and don't have the experience or trust in themselves to go against what was done in the regular season. They know what worked and lack the experience to know when to go against what may have worked previously.

A question could be raised whether inexperienced managers are better off learning with developing or even rebuilding teams. In any case, it's certainly a gamble to entrust a stacked team to a rookie decision-maker.

Not necessarily. A question can be raised whether inexperienced managers learn more quickly when put in difficult situations where they get burnt. After all, failure is a great teacher. Failure on a big stage is a really great teacher. If the point is to make sure inexperienced managers make decisions that are more likely to not hurt his team's chances of winning a World Series then no manager should start off with a stacked or competitive team. But the point should be to find a guy who is the best manager for your team and hope his decisions under pressure are the right decisions. Sometimes experienced managers (Ned Yost) make questionable decisions in situations they have never been in before too. It's not always about the experience of the manager, but the experience of that manager in the given situation.

“When we went to hire a manager, we wanted someone who understood the culture of our organization,” Cardinals GM John Mozeliak said. “We certainly felt Mike was going to have a learning curve. But he understood the culture. Mike worked for us. No, he didn't have managerial experience. But he understood what we were about. I think that helped.”

Other teams hire managers that "understand the culture" of the team that hired them too. Don Mattingly worked under Joe Torre before he got the Dodgers' manager job. It's about making smart, logical decisions in different game situations. There is not always a book, culture or method on how to do this.

Ausmus was criticized especially for going back to struggling Joba Chamberlain and Joakim Soria in Game 2 after they didn't get many outs in Game 1. That Chamberlain was only in briefly in Game 1, and wasn't hit especially hard in the first game didn't deter the critics.

It doesn't matter if Chamberlain was hit hard or threw a lot of pitches in Game 1. He threw six pitches to two batters and gave up a hit and two runs in that game. He let inherited runners score, which isn't what a team looks for in a relief pitcher. Then Ausmus gave Chamberlain the chance to face four batters in Game 2 and Chamberlain recorded one out, hit a batter and gave up two hits. It's not just that Chamberlain didn't get hit hard in Game 1, but when he was getting hit in Game 2 he stayed out there.

By the way, Chamberlain had pitched two innings against the Orioles on the season. He had an ERA of 9.00 against them while giving up six hits and two runs to the 13 Oriole batters he faced. After Game 1, Ausmus could have easily thought, "Boy, Joba gets hit hard by the Orioles. It's probably not the best matchup for him." He didn't though and trotted Chamberlain back out there the next day. Did Ausmus not have this information handy? It's not the decision that Ausmus made based on Game 1, but the decision based on Chamberlain's performance against the Orioles on the season combined with his performance in Game 1 where I question Ausmus. Therein lies the issue with the decision to trot Chamberlain back out there for Game 2. Ausmus had two separate pieces of information saying it may not turn out well.

One of them isn't Tigers GM Dave Dombrowski, who said about Ausmus, “He did a fine job. We don't have any complaints.”

He's not going to throw his first year manager under the bus by stating he didn't agree with some of the decisions that Ausmus made. Dombrowski isn't stupid enough to give the media chum in the water like that.

One competing AL exec even wondered about whether the team and superstar Miguel Cabrera look a little “loose,” meaning undisciplined, but Dombrowski swatted back that criticism, saying Cabrera, for one, is just a guy who likes to have fun.

“He's no different since he's come to Detroit,” Dombrowski said.

I like how Jon Heyman takes quotes from competing AL executives and doesn't treat some of the quotes like they aren't just attempts to start trouble or create disenfranchisement among the Tigers organization. I mean, a competing AL executive would NEVER do that. I'm sure some of this criticism of Ausmus is valid, while some of it is just tweaking the Tigers when given the chance.

Williams, to some, had many more issues. To remove his best pitcher Jordan Zimmermann after 100 pitches one batter after he had retired 20 in a row (and one game removed from a no-hitter) for closer Drew Storen in Game 1 seemed to be a stretch to some (though the AL exec pointed out that Storen has been “great all year.”)

This is a pure judgment call in my mind. Zimmerman had just thrown 100 pitches or more in two straight starts and Storen has been good all year. If Zimmerman was pitching on normal rest (which he was) then I see it as a judgment call. If Zimmerman were on 3 days rest then I probably would have pulled him as well. What's the score in the game, what batters are up? These are factors that Jon Heyman seems to be ignoring here and should not be doing so.

The big issue for Williams though, was the 3-2 loss in Game 4, when he used left Matt Thornton (who'd pitched well for them but had been discarded by the Yankees, who didn't trust him in a big spot) against Buster Posey, relied on nervous rookie Aaron Barrett for too long and used Rafael Soriano, who struggled in the second half, but never called upon their best set-up man Tyler Clippard, Storen or even Strasburg, who was said to be ready to go.

And there we go. This was a judgment call also, but it was a dumb judgment call. Unlike the decision to pull Zimmerman, Williams was following his mandated rule for who his "7th inning guy" was and not making a decision based on the game situation. In a win-and-out game, the best pitchers must be used by a manager. They don't "have" to be used, but it's dumb not use these pitchers if you are a manager who wants to give his team the best chance to win the game. The situation here called for the best pitchers to appear in order to win the game. Who the "7th inning guy" was doesn't matter.

Mattingly took plenty of hits, too, as he tried to navigate through a cold bullpen. The call to start Clayton Kershaw on three days rest and keep him in Game 4 after 93 pitches through six one-hit innings was logical

I mean, yes, and no. It's bad enough the Dodgers wanted Kershaw to pitch on three days rest, but Mattingly should have had a very short hook with Kershaw. Once he saw a runner get on-base, or even two runners, that was probably the time to pull him. I know the statistics said that Adams didn't hit lefties well and Kershaw pitches well to lefties, but having Kershaw go too far over 100 pitches was an error and I would have pulled him. 

(“no one would have removed Kershaw after six,” one exec said).

I would have pulled him. After Holliday's infield single I would have pulled Kershaw. Then after Peralta's single I would have pulled Kershaw. Simply put, he was working on three days rest and was nearing 100 pitches. He was pitching well, but pitching well on three days rest. Of course if Mattingly had pulled Kershaw and the Dodgers lost the game then there would have been calls to keep Kershaw in the game. He pitched six innings on three days rest. He did his job. 

And even the surprise call to bench Yasiel Puig, then use him as a pinch runner, not a pinch hitter, is highly defensible, as Puig conjured his 2013 NLCS and second-half 2014 slumps with a seven-strikeout streak in the Cardinals series.

Actually, I consider this to be less defensible. Puig was striking out a lot, but he still had three hits and a walk on 14 plate appearances. He is a guy who can change the game with one swing of the bat and causes teams to pitch carefully to him. He strikes out, but he also gets on-base. 

Justin Turner had a big year, and the Dodgers don't have another guy on their bench who can score from first on a double down the line like Puig can.

Typical Jon Heyman. He doesn't think it all through. Who cares if a guy can score from first on a double down the line? First someone has to hit a double down the line to score Puig. And yes, Turner had a big year in a limited role. He had one at-bat in the NLDS at that point and didn't get a hit. If Puig isn't going to bat because he'll strike out, that's fine, but Turner had close to the same strikeout per plate appearance ratio that Puig had on the season. To defend Puig as a pinch-runner because no other player on the bench could score on a double down the line? It's ridiculous to me. Someone has to hit a double before Puig can score.

The one highly questionable move was calling upon Scott Elbert, who'd only thrown 4 1/3 innings in the majors this year. While there were mostly lefties coming up and he'd obviously lost faith in the others, that move seemed like a bit of a risk.

Well, Elbert did strikeout the only two batters he faced in Game 1. That's something, isn't it? It seems Heyman only pays attention to what happened in the NLDS when it fits his motives. He wants to say it was fine to bench Puig because of what happened in the NLDS, but then questions the decision to put Elbert in the game while ignoring his Game 1 performance.

Mattingly could have brought J.P. Howell to pitch here in Game 3. He brought in Howell earlier in the series and he had gotten hit hard, but then Mattingly played him late in Game 3 anyway to pitch less than an inning. So it's all confusing and I didn't have a huge issue with Elbert being in the game.

But that his status is even a question after he improved the Dodgers' win total four straight years -- from 79 with Joe Torre to 82, 86, 92 and 94 -- suggests how much focus is on these managers. Such is life these days in the twitter world.

As Jon Heyman blames Twitter for this while quoting MLB executives who agree with idiots on Twitter. I'm sure it's all Twitter's fault that these executives agree with people on Twitter. It's hilarious that Heyman blames Twitter while providing quotes from those not on Twitter who agree with the Twitter users.

Yost has been hit hardest of all, and some of his moves seem wacky. However, the Royals don't have him for strategy but for his persona.

Sure, he can't manage very well, but he's a great guy to be around and he's the type of manager the Royals want...absent the whole "Not sure he's good at strategy" part that is so crucial in the playoffs. 

"He's very intense and highly competitive," Royals GM Dayton Moore said. "He brings a competitive spirit every single day. He's created an attitude of resilience and toughness."

And nothing says toughness and resilience like "bringing the gas" and then bunting as much as possible. 

The way Yost getting hammered publicly, he had better be tough.

Well, if he weren't so poor at strategy then he wouldn't get hammered publicly by those mean people on the Twitter machine. It's all their fault for pointing out the stupid moves that Yost made in the playoffs through the Wild Card game and ALDS. How dare the fans have a forum to express their opinion when a manager does something they believe to be stupid! It's so mean to criticize these volunteer managers like this.

2 comments MLB.com Must Have Given Terence Moore a Raise, Because He Loves Himself Some Bud Selig

Yes, this is a post about how I don't like the one game Wild Card playoff and Terence Moore does. Yes, I still hate it even after the exciting one game Wild Card playoff game this year. "Hate the sin, love the sinner." That's my motto about the one game Wild Card playoff. It's exciting as a one game series, but I prefer it as a three game series, mostly because I think a 162 game season shouldn't be decided by a one game playoff. 

Terence Moore has written his annual "I love this new one game Wild Card playoff" column. I'm not kidding, it's an annual thing. The one game Wild Card playoff was instituted in 2012 and he's written about it every year since. Here is Terence's 2012 column about it. Here is Terence's 2013 column about it. Now we have the 2014 version of this column. What makes it better this time is Terence goes overboard and starts over-praising Bud Selig for his wonderful vision to set up a one game Wild Card playoff. I greatly dislike the one game Wild Card playoff. I think it's dumb to take a 162 game season and condense it down to one game. Sure, it gives division winners a reward for winning the division, but not really. Prior to the one game playoff, division winners got to host the Wild Card team in the Divisional Series. They still get to host the Wild Card team in the Divisional Series. Nothing gained, nothing lost. One division winner gets the same reward they received prior to the one game playoffs, it's just they don't have to play in a one game Wild Card playoff they never had to play in previous to 2012 anyway. The seedings don't change with the new second Wild Card.

Of course Terence loves the idea because MLB.com is affiliated with MLB and he has to pretend to like the change to an expanded playoff format. It's the same reason Terence writes a column about how the All-Star Game is just so great.

So on to Terence's 2014 "The One Game Wild Card Playoff is Great" columns with some extra Bud Selig love. I've always appreciated Bud Selig's reign as MLB Commissioner more than others have, but I do draw a line at taking the time to expound at just how wonderful he has been. He's had great successes and great failures. There will be worse commissioners and there will be better commissioners. So onto how great the terrible one game Wild Card playoff game is.

It's nearly mid-September after a lengthy spring and summer of baseball, but from now through the end of the month, there will be a slew of significant games.

Thank you, Mr. Selig.

Yes, because there were never any significant games played down the stretch prior to 2012. The final day of the 2011 season never happened. Now that there is a one game Wild Card playoff, teams that wouldn't be in the hunt for the second Wild Card (teams that don't have as good of a record as the team getting the first Wild Card) will now be able to ignore their 162 game record entirely and get a chance with one game to steal the Wild Card spot the first Wild Card team earned over the entire season.

So far in the two years of the extra Wild Card two of the four teams have playing in the Wild Card game have had the same record. The two Wild Card games that involved teams with different records had a record differential of 4 and 6 wins. So with that small sample size, I can come to the conclusion only half the time the first Wild Card team will have earned the Wild Card spot over the season and shouldn't have to play an extra game.

If there is not a large gap in the record of the first and second Wild Card team, the second Wild Card would not add any more significant games to the month of September since these two teams would be fighting for the one Wild Card spot under the system prior to 2012. See how it works? If there is more drama post-2012, it's because teams are fighting for the second Wild Card spot that the first Wild Card team (potentially) rightfully earned over 162 games. If there was less drama prior to 2012 then there was still be a dogfight for a Wild Card spot during the month of September. The difference being one team (the second Wild Card team) now gets a chance to play one more game to prove they should be in the playoffs. Otherwise, nothing is different. At the expense of more drama, which I am not against, an entire season is broken down into one game. I am against that. Make the Wild Card playoff a three game series and I will be much happier. Rant not done.

The Tigers have spent the last few days in Detroit fighting for their American League Central lives against the Royals, and Comerica Park has been rocking when it hasn't been rolling. You can expect much of the same this weekend in San Francisco.

This would have happened regardless of whether there was a second Wild Card team or not. These teams would have been fighting for the division regardless. And no, winning the division doesn't mean "more" now. It means no more or no less. It means the same thing. The team with the best record plays the Wild Card team and the teams with the 2nd and 3rd best record play each other. Same as before, no matter what Terence Moore says or tries to make it seem like.

There, inside the orange-and-black noise factory that will be AT&T Park, the Giants and the Dodgers will continue their rivalry. This time, they're trying to sprint past the other toward the finish line of the National League West.

Again, this wouldn't have changed if there was no second Wild Card team because these are teams fighting to win their division. In fact, the team that didn't win the division has more of a fallback to not winning the division in that they know there is now another Wild Card spot they could earn.

So when reporters asked Houston interim manager Tom Lawless earlier this week if he planned to use a lot of his September callups the rest of the way, which is what most non-contending teams do this time of year, Lawless emphatically said no.

He added, "While we're playing these games in the playoff hunt, it's not fair to everybody else [to play callups]. We're going to try to win the game, bottom line."

Though it is fair to mention the Astros trying to win a game is different from other MLB teams trying to win a game. Lawless also didn't mention that he would have played callups if the Astros were playing teams who weren't in the playoff hunt. Maybe that is supposed to be understood.

Even out-of-the-running teams remain motivated these days.

That's sort of reaching a little bit. More teams in the hunt for a playoff spot doesn't seem so bad overall. A one game playoff to decide which teams gets to advance does seem so bad to me. It takes an entire season of performance and distills it into one game where ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN!

We're back to Mr. Selig, otherwise known as Bud, or the Baseball Commissioner, if you prefer. Interleague Play. Expanded replay. Old-new ballparks. Three divisions in each league. The toughest drug policy among the major sports leagues in North America. Everywhere you look, you see the visionary mind of the retiring Selig,

I mean, I guess. These all seem like ideas that Terence Moore would normally despise, so I can't help but wonder if his love for these changes to the game are in some way inspired by his employment with MLB.com. Sure, they don't write his columns for him, but they also can't have one of their own columnists bashing most of the commissioner's signature ideas. That doesn't look good.

who keeps dragging the game's traditionalists (my hand is raised) into the 21st century. That's why it isn't surprising that his decision two years ago to add a second Wild Card for each league to the postseason is the gift that keeps on giving and giving … and giving some more.

I recognize it's a matter of opinion, but what exactly has the second Wild Card given? It does put more teams in contention for the chance to play one more game and "make the playoffs," which is bullshit since "the playoffs" in the case of the Wild Card game is one game, but other than that it hasn't enhanced or changed the playoff format in any way. The second Wild Card allows more teams a chance to compete for a one game playoff. That's the gift and it is given during the span of one game and then the postseason goes back to exactly how it was when there was only one Wild Card team.

For starters, more than half of the 30 Major League teams either are pretty much assured a playoff berth through winning their division or own a decent chance right now of playing in October courtesy of one of those Wild Card spots.

Great, more teams have been given the illusion of success through the process of the MLB playoffs being expanded. Unfortunately, for one of these teams the elation will last one more game and then it will be over. A 90 win team may get beaten by an 85 win team in a one game playoff and the new Wild Card system will be a success. This is because more teams were involved in the competition for that Wild Card spot and success over the entire season was essentially ignored in favor of a one game playoff.

And in baseball, one game playoffs are not the best way to determine which is the better team. Baseball is not like the other major sports where one game can show the strength of a team. In baseball, the strength of a team could lie in the rotational starting pitching depth they have and this is what makes them a good team. Using a one game playoff to determine which is the "better" team is misleading because one team could have a good starting rotation with no aces, while another team has Clayton Kershaw and four other below average starters. If Team A without the aces wins 90 games during the season, they have shown themselves to be the better team over 162 games. Yet Team B, who hypothetically won 85 games during the season, trots out Clayton Kershaw for the one game playoff and they are able to win the Wild Card game as a result. Did the Wild Card playoff just erase 162 games of achievement through one game? Yes, it did. A one game playoff doesn't measure the strength of a team and that's mostly why I really dislike the one game Wild Card playoff that Terence Moore inexplicably likes so much. A one game playoff in baseball isn't just a crapshoot, it's the middle finger to how baseball is played over the other 162 games.

Then there are teams like the Astros, with one eye on next year, but with the other on trying to gain momentum for 2015 by spoiling the dreams of contenders.

Which they may be trying to do anyway if there was no second Wild Card.

Let that sink in. That already is more than enough to salute Selig for what he's done during his 23-year reign.

Congrats, Bud Selig! The liquor and the whores are being paid for by Terence Moore tonight! Also, can Terence have another raise?

There was nothing like this regarding impactful games. In fact, back when there were Big Red Machines and Yankees dynasties led by Ruth, DiMaggio or Mantle -- or even those years of a Miracle Mets-type team here and there -- pennant races often consisted of, well, nobody, or maybe a couple of teams fighting for one spot … or perhaps three or four, but that was about it.

And then the Wild Card and divisional reorganization changed that. The idea the Wild Card game is a brilliant idea just eludes me. It's a contrived way of drumming up excitement and getting more teams involved in the Wild Card race. I'm not against another team from each league making the playoffs, but at least make it a 3 game series. Don't make it a one game series WHERE ANYTHING CAN HAPPEN that goes against what makes baseball great, which is the starting pitching depth one team may have, where they don't need an ace to win games because they are a good team. For me, a one game playoff goes against what baseball should be looking to reward when a team makes the postseason. If two teams are tied for a division lead, then a one game playoff makes sense. In the case of a one game Wild Card playoff where the two teams could have different records, a one game playoff makes less sense to me.

Then Selig added three divisions and a Wild Card for each league into the mix in 1994. Under this system, the division winners were joined in the playoffs by that Wild Card team, and it remained that way until 2011.

The Wild Card was an improvement in my opinion. Adding another Wild Card team can be an improvement, but it can't be done in a one game playoff that drums up drama and ignores the 162 game season that was just played.

Selig knew baseball's playoff system could become even greater than that. So he added that second Wild Card team to each league before the 2012 season to create a "win-and-you're-in" game at the end of the regular season for both the American League and the National League involving their Wild Card teams.

Just make it a three game series, please. Even if the second Wild Card was taken away, there would still be drama for the race to the final Wild Card spot, but at least pretend the Wild Card game gives lip service to rewarding teams for their performance over 162 games by making it a three game series. Allow more than one starter for each team to decide if a team "wins-and-is-in."

It made a Wild Card spot something that a playoff-hopeful team would want only as a last resort.

No, it added another Wild Card spot to the playoffs for one game and one game only. Prior to 2012, were there a rash of teams not trying to win the division and intentionally only trying to win the Wild Card spot? Was I not aware of this happening? Were there MLB teams saying, "Fuck it, we don't want to win the division. We just want to make the playoffs, not have homefield advantage in the playoffs and play the best team in our league." I don't recall this happening. In fact, the second Wild Card (as we will see contained in a quote by Fredi Gonzalez) can give a team less incentive to win the division and aim for one of the Wild Card spots since there is an extra Wild Card spot open now.

Now division winners are relevant again.

They were relevant before. Just as relevant before as they are now. Teams that win their division, which is what all MLB teams were trying to do prior to 2012, still play in the Divisional Series just like they used to play in the Divisional Series. The seeding hasn't changed and homefield advantage hasn't changed. Division winners are as relevant as they were prior to 2012. It's just the value of the Wild Card has been diminished because a team that gets the Wild Card still has to play in the one game Wild Card round. Division winners don't have to play in this game, just like they didn't have to play in this Wild Card game when it didn't exist. Teams will still try to win the division, just like they tried to win the division prior to 2012.

Unlike Wild Card winners, division winners still are guaranteed the chance to play more than just a single-elimination game during the postseason.

Which they were guaranteed prior to 2012 as well. Now there is no guarantee a team that wins one of the Wild Card spots will be able to play in the Divisional Series. That is the only change with the second Wild Card in place.

Elsewhere, the Pirates lead the Braves and the Brewers by 1 1/2 games for the NL's second Wild Card spot, but you just know anybody with a "P" on his cap in the Pirates' clubhouse would prefer to erase the Cardinals' 4 1/2-game lead in the NL Central.

WHICH THEY WOULD HAVE WANTED TO DO EVEN IF THERE WAS NO SECOND WILD CARD! In fact, there is more incentive to erase the Cardinals divisional lead with one Wild Card spot because if the Pirates don't erase this lead then they don't have as good of a chance to make the playoffs. So in this case, an argument could be made winning the division is less important to the Pirates in 2014 than it was in 2011, because they know if they don't win the division in 2014 they still get one shot to make the Divisional Series that wasn't available to them in 2011.

"Our goal always is to win the [NL East], but the way things are right now in baseball, just getting into the playoffs somehow at the end of the season and finding a way to keep playing in October isn't bad," said Braves manager Fredi Gonzalez, whose team is nine games behind the division-leading Nationals.

Feel the fury in Fredi Gonzalez's voice while the Braves desperately try to catch up with the Nationals! Wait, no that's not fury, that's resignation the Braves can't catch the Nationals and he's fine with just taking the second Wild Card spot. As usual, Terence Moore has provided information in his column that helps to submarine his main point. He says:

It made a Wild Card spot something that a playoff-hopeful team would want only as a last resort.

Thus the current obsession of the Tigers, Royals, Giants and Dodgers with trying to capture their respective divisions as opposed to settling for a Wild Card berth. Elsewhere, the Pirates lead the Braves and the Brewers by 1 1/2 games for the NL's second Wild Card spot,

Meanwhile Fredi Gonzalez, the manager of one of those teams that would only want the Wild Card spot as a last resort and would be obsessed with trying to capture their respective divisions, says, "Eh, I want to win the division, but the way MLB has the Wild Card system set up then it doesn't matter if we win the division as long as we are still playing when it comes time for the playoffs."

See the brilliance of Bud Selig and the one game Wild Card playoff? Teams are now desperate to win their division, unless that seems too hard, in which case the new Wild Card spot will suffice perfectly. Feel the tension and feeling of "the division is our last resort" Fredi Gonzalez has.

"If we get in as a [Wild Card] team, and if we all of a sudden run the table and win the World Series, you're good with that, right?

FEEL THE DESPERATION TO WIN THE DIVISION! IT'S PALPABLE!

Right, but the odds of that happening aren't the best anymore.

Actually, the odds of receiving a berth in the playoffs through the Wild Card have increased with the addition of the second Wild Card. It's not like a team that gets in the playoffs with the second Wild Card has a much more difficult gauntlet to run than a team that wins their division. The Wild Card teams have to win one more game than division winners have to win.

Which is good.

This was a paragraph by the way. Three words equals one sentence which equals an entire paragraph. Terence Moore must be proud of himself. Ready for another really short paragraph?

For nearly everybody.

Another three word sentence that equals a paragraph.

It probably seems petty, but I won't ever learn to love the one game Wild Card playoff. Make it a three game series and then I can get on-board with the idea.

Terence Moore is a columnist for MLB.com. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs.

Of course it wasn't. Terence Moore could just speak negative opinions on Bud Selig's job performance and no one at MLB.com would care.