MLB August 2015

[Joe K]

Montreal: "He rebuilt the franchise" is a pretty favorable way to refer to a roster that won two years after he left with only one key player (Alou) who you can say Dombrowski directly acquired. I can't think of any time a GM has been given top credit, let alone sole credit, for a team's drafting. No one says "Michael drafted/signed the Yankees 90s core", they say he was GM when those players were drafted/signed. Also, he traded away a top 5 all-time SP for a rental during a .500 season.

Florida: Starts the trend of "when he has a lot of money, things go pretty well". You must looooooove Cashman.

Detroit: Took a bad team and made the playoffs once in nine years. Was given a top 5 budget and consistently made the playoffs without a ring. Probably handicapped the roster for the next decade before heading to Boston.

Boston: Can't wait for him to get credit for "turning the Red Sox around" despite walking into a franchise as its starting to graduate a top ranked system to the majors. Go Dombrowski!

Yeah, if you're going to give Dombrowski credit for Montreal winning 94 games in 1993, it should also be acknowledged that his trading away Randy Johnson likely cost them, at a minimum, a division title that year, since 1993 was Johnson's first great season in Seattle. Also wasn't the core of that Marlins team put together almost entirely by spending big in free agency before the 1996 and 1997 seasons? Getting one 92-win, World Series team out of two years of heavy free agency spending isn't that remarkable, even before the subsequent fire sale is taken into account.

[Gunpowder]

To be fair, Johnson wasn't a top 5 pitcher all time until he was in his mid-30s.

Which would mean steroids if he swung a bat.



EDIT: But damn, imagine Pedro Martinez and Johnson on the same team. Jeez.

[Joe K]

Johnson won most of his Cy Young Awards in his mid-30s, but he did finish in the top-3 in the AL Cy Young voting 4 times between 1993 (age 29) and 1997 (age 33). So he wasn't that much of a late bloomer.

[mister d]

I guess it works out best if we credit Dombrowski for the scouting and development positives but don't demerit him for the negatives.



(This doesn't mean I don't think he's a good to very good GM, he's somewhere in that range. He's not great and definitely not an all-time great. I tend to blame Ilitch more than him for the long term deals, but if those were his, he's been downright bad at high level decision making for three years now. Basically the Glen Sather of MLB.)

[Rex]

Seems a legitimate possibility that the six worst teams in MLB this year are all in the NL. It's really close to being that way in the standings right now.

[mister d]

If you go by run differential, its 7 of the bottom 9. The AL is +17 for the year despite the NLC being +41.

NLC: +41
ALE: +17
ALC: +8
NLW: -3
ALW: -8
NLE: -55 (!)

Blue Jays: +1.14
Cardinals: +1.02
Royals: +0.64
Pirates: +0.63
Astros: +0.62
Yankees: +0.57
Giants: +0.52
Orioles: +0.48
Dodgers: +0.47
Diamondbacks: +0.25
Cubs: +0.24
Mets: +0.20
Angels: +0.20
Nationals: +0.16
Athletics: +0.06
Rays: -0.08
Twins: -0.14
Indians: -0.21
Rangers: -0.24
Tigers: -0.33
Red Sox: -0.36
Padres: -0.38
Marlins: -0.38
Reds: -0.43
Brewers: -0.52
White Sox: -0.53
Mariners: -0.70
Braves: -0.78
Rockies: -0.82
Phillies: -1.28

[howard]

Astros' Mike Fiers, going into the ninth, no-hitting the Dodgers.

eta: got it. Giants gain a game, only 1.5 back.

[DC47]

Montreal: "He rebuilt the franchise" is a pretty favorable way to refer to a roster that won two years after he left with only one key player (Alou) who you can say Dombrowski directly acquired. I can't think of any time a GM has been given top credit, let alone sole credit, for a team's drafting. No one says "Michael drafted/signed the Yankees 90s core", they say he was GM when those players were drafted/signed. Also, he traded away a top 5 all-time SP for a rental during a .500 season.

I am simply amazed that you don't believe a GM should be given major credit -- for better or worse -- with his team's drafts. Especially with Montreal where they didn't have money for a big staff. Dombrowski was very hands on. Before he got promoted, he was director of player development.

Perhaps you didn't follow baseball back then. But Montreal was broke. They didn't have the money to keep their good veterans. Further, no GM makes only good trades. It's naive to base a criticism of a baseball executive who made many dozens of meaningful personnel decisions because a small number didn't work out. You look at whether a GM can make a team a serious contender. I think it's pretty widely accepted that Dombrowski laid the foundation for Montreal's success shortly after he departed. It's about who was in charge when the players were acquired and developed.

Florida: Starts the trend of "when he has a lot of money, things go pretty well". You must looooooove Cashman.

An expansion franchise starts out with very little talent. The Florida owner did allow Dombrowski to spend some money. But I don't recall the Marlins being at the top of the spending scale. Dombrowski did a brilliant job with the cash, and the Marlins won. Spending doesn't always equal success. Witness the uneven record of even the mega-spending teams in baseball in recent years. I am still waiting for someone to tell me of an expansion team in any major sport that won a title in fewer years than Dombrowski's Marlins.

Detroit: Took a bad team and made the playoffs once in nine years. Was given a top 5 budget and consistently made the playoffs without a ring. Probably handicapped the roster for the next decade before heading to Boston.

I'm not following you here. Made the play-offs once in nine years? It seems to me that Dombrowski took a complete disaster of an organization and turned it around so that just three years after losing 119 games, they were in the World Series. In the past ten years the Tigers have been in the play-offs five times and the Series twice. That's a consistently competitive team. It's a record that only a few teams can match in that time frame. Even the Yankees, who started out with a far stronger organization than the Tigers and who have out-spent the them by quite a bit, have not done much better.

Boston: Can't wait for him to get credit for "turning the Red Sox around" despite walking into a franchise as its starting to graduate a top ranked system to the majors. Go Dombrowski!

Despite the albatross contracts signed recently, Boston is obviously poised for a major turnaround. They've got great prospects and the ability to spend money.

They are however, a disaster in the major leagues right now. And based on your comments, I think you may over-rate the value of top prospects. Witness how the Royals with a farm system that was widely touted as the best in baseball history took many years -- and the partial or complete failure of so many of those top prospects -- to barely make it to the play-offs.

If the Red Sox quickly become a serious contender, it will still be quite an achievement. Many teams that are similarly 'poised' have a rough time.

So I'll rate the Boston turnaround -- if it happens -- as a major achievement. But depending on the circumstances, it may not rate at the top of Dombrowski's list, because at least right now it appears to me that he was dealing with far greater adversity in his first three jobs.

[DC47]

I guess it works out best if we credit Dombrowski for the scouting and development positives but don't demerit him for the negatives.

(This doesn't mean I don't think he's a good to very good GM, he's somewhere in that range. He's not great and definitely not an all-time great. I tend to blame Ilitch more than him for the long term deals, but if those were his, he's been downright bad at high level decision making for three years now. Basically the Glen Sather of MLB.)

I'd put Dombrowski in the same elite category of current baseball executives as Beane, Friedman, and Sabean.

It's obvious to those who follow the Tigers that Mike Ilitch's desire to win a baseball title before he dies was the driving force behind the deals they did with Fielder, Verlander, and Cabrera. I wouldn't have done the Cabrera deal, but I acknowledge that it's defensible given the likely inflation for star salaries, and the reasonable chance that the best hitter in recent years might retain much of his skill -- none of it related to speed -- into his late 30s.

Does your 'downright bad' in the past three years rating include Dombrowski moving Fielder and most of his albatross contract to Texas and getting the very good Ian Kinsler in return? Some would say that was a brilliant deal. How about landing Yoenis Cespedes and Alex Wilson for Porcello? What do you think of the prospect haul he got for Price, Cespedes and Soria in July? Picking J.D. Martinez off the waiver wire? I'd rate all of them very highly.

Not every recent deal has worked out -- that is obvious or the team would be in first place. So this hasn't been Dombrowski's best work in terms of trades. Is this important? No baseball executive is free of mediocre three year periods. However, since Dombrowski got to Detroit I think it's obvious that he's been as good as the very best in trades and free agency. That's primarily how he got an organization that started with a very low talent level in both the majors and minors to the play-offs in half of the past ten seasons.

[mister d]

On my cell and that's looooooong ...

Montreal: I don't credit GMs with draft picks because GMs don't scout amateur players, they take the input of their scouts and SDs and press the button. The only exceptions seem to be top 5(?) picks and the overrules that almost always turn tragic.

Florida: I checked yesterday, the WS team was (I think) 7th in payroll, hence my saying that when Dombrowski gets money, he gets results.

Detroit: See, this is what I'm talking about. You credit Dombrowksi for drafts and waiver wire fliers and quickly and "obviously" excuse the UFA signings. That's the whole reason I said he's so tough to grade out. And, if this is the downside, it's tough for me to look at his 14 years in Detroit and the condition upon leaving as some great success.

Royals(?): Included among their failed or once failed prospects are their 1B, 3B and LF, all key contributors. I'm guessing the value they've gotten out of homegrown 1st rounders is top 10 in the majors.

Red Sox: I expect the same. And I wonder who will get credit, Dombrowski for the turnaround, Cherington for "his picks" or the front office from 2012-15.

[Joe K]

I am still waiting for someone to tell me of an expansion team in any major sport that won a title in fewer years than Dombrowski's Marlins.

Arizona Diamondbacks. Plus they had four straight winning seasons, and not just one winning season followed by a firesale.

[mister d]

Also, he's probably not even in the current top 10, let alone "elite".

[mister d]

Also, also ... Friedman isn't a GM.

[DC47]

Also, also ... Friedman isn't a GM.

Note that I wrote the following, I did not refer to GMs.

"I'd put Dombrowski in the same elite category of current baseball executives as Beane, Friedman, and Sabean."

In the modern world of baseball, it's no longer always the GM who is calling all the shots on player acquisition and development. Some executives have hybrid roles. I think it's reasonable to consider the people above as having the dominant role on these things in their organizations.

[DC47]

Also, he's probably not even in the current top 10, let alone "elite".

Who are your top 10 that are better than Dombrowski?

[DC47]

Montreal: I don't credit GMs with draft picks because GMs don't scout amateur players, they take the input of their scouts and SDs and press the button. The only exceptions seem to be top 5(?) picks and the overrules that almost always turn tragic.

What is the source of this remarkable insight into the role of GMs? Obviously not the scenes Lewis recounts in Moneyball where Beane dominates (and later fires) his scouts. Senior baseball execs determine what kind of player acquisition and development strategy to employ. They hire and fire the people who manage the scouts, and sometimes scouts themselves. So to with minor league coaches. They extensively review reports and sometimes do look at players. They ultimately make the decisions. Seriously, do you think a guy like Jeff Luthnow of Houston is just a rubber stamp? Andrew Friedman?

Florida: I checked yesterday, the WS team was (I think) 7th in payroll, hence my saying that when Dombrowski gets money, he gets results.

This expansion franchise started with no farm system to draw on. Having the 8th highest payroll (according to Baseball Reference) -- and just $7M higher than the 15th biggest spender -- in that context doesn't seem to me to give a team a big talent advantage. Dombrowski used his cash remarkably well, and won it all. If the owner had not forced a fire sale, who knows what he would have done as his farm system matured?

Detroit: See, this is what I'm talking about. You credit Dombrowksi for drafts and waiver wire fliers and quickly and "obviously" excuse the UFA signings. That's the whole reason I said he's so tough to grade out. And, if this is the downside, it's tough for me to look at his 14 years in Detroit and the condition upon leaving as some great success.

I doubt that there is a single knowledgeable baseball writer, or Tigers fan, who fails to recognize that the contracts for Fielder, Verlander and Cabrera were done at the command of Mike Ilitch. He is a dominant force in all his businesses, including his sports teams. He's an 86 year-old billionaire, said to be in ill health, who desperately wants to win a baseball championship. He's willing to take financial risks that other owners won't take in order to do it.

I mentioned the positive side of Dombrowski's recent deals in response to your claim that in the short-term he's done a bad job. But of course, I don't judge baseball execs in the short-term, and I judge them by their ability to put contenders on the field not by toting up every single personnel decision and coming up with a magic number that sums it all up. The team's outcomes are the relevant measure.

As to the Tigers bad 'condition upon leaving,' I don't think it's as bad as you imply. This is not a homer stance. In our dialogue this winter over which AL Central Division team had the most talent, while Brian took the Tigers, I took the Royals. I still think that's true. But the notion that the Tigers are a bad, old team with albatross contracts and a terrible farm system that prevent their revitalization doesn't hold up to scrutiny in my view.

The farm system was indeed terrible -- until Dombrowski dealt Price, Cespedes and Soria for a fine haul of players near the major league level. Now they are approaching mid-level if Norris is included. The contracts are bad -- but if Ilitch keeps his payroll where it is plus MLB inflation, there is room to work with. They are losing some big contracts that provide space to sign new players. As to the team being bad and old, they are not far below .500 in a good division, despite trading three of their top players and losing Cabrera and Victor Martinez for a long time. They are at least solid and most cases better (e.g., Cabrera, Iglesias, two Martinezs) at 8 of 9 positions in the field, with considerable upside in Castellanos and McCann. The pitching staff is a mess, and that's where the money (if it exists) will be spent. Too, the newly acquired prospects include 5 pitchers.

Royals(?): Included among their failed or once failed prospects are their 1B, 3B and LF, all key contributors. I'm guessing the value they've gotten out of homegrown 1st rounders is top 10 in the majors.

I'm sure you're aware of the high percentage of players in the 'best farm system in history' who were disappointments or complete busts in KC. The three that made it (above) each took far longer than expected, as I'm sure you know. Please let me know of the key pitchers that came to KC via their draft; they had so many as top 10 prospects for several years. KC got to the top largely due to astute trades and free agent acquisitions. Credit to Dayton Moore.

Red Sox: I expect the same. And I wonder who will get credit, Dombrowski for the turnaround, Cherington for "his picks" or the front office from 2012-15.

Knowledgeable people will look to see where the key players came from. If Dombrowski largely plays out the hand he's been dealt, and the young players come through in two years, then Cherington will get considerable credit from me. Even if Dombrowski does a lot of deals, if the young player Cherington acquired and developed are a big part of post-season teams, he'll get credit from me.

This is the first time that Dombrowski took over a franchise that had considerable resources -- both players and money. That's no guarantee of a rapid turn-around. Or any at all, given baseball history. But if it happens I won't necessarily think that it is Dombrowski's finest job as a baseball exec. Nor will I think he's done better in Boston than, for example, what Andrew Friedman did in Tampa Bay. Until he got the big money to go to LA, I thought he was the most under-rated exec in baseball.

Please pardon my lengthy replies. I respect your thinking about baseball, even if in some areas we disagree (and of course, these are the most interesting). So I try to fully engage your points.

[mister d]

I'll get to the other one later, but better GMs (or probably much more accurately "GMs I'd rather run the Yankees"): Beane, Sabean (begrudging), Cashman, Mozeliak, Huntington, Luhnow, Rizzo (I have no idea what's wrong there beyond Williams, because that roster is stellar), Alderson ... I'd pick Hoyer, Antonetti, Zaidi (for no reason other than Friedman picked him) too but I'd have trouble honestly arguing for them. Duquette and Moore are probably in the same bucket as Dombrowski in that I don't like half their moves or more but can't argue with the results. So I guess there are eight I think are clearing better options and a lot more total horseshit GMs than I realized offhand.

[howard]

This anniversary snuck up on me. I was an 8yo Dodger fan at the time. Best part of the story, Roseboro was experienced in karate.

Saturday marks 50th anniversary of infamous Juan Marichal incident

[rass]

How you doin' howard?

[howard]

Just holding on tight, get through this stretch of the schedule (vs Cards, Pirates, Cubs and Cards again) so they can feast on the division.

But, yeah, earlier I was all:

"KANG!!!!!!!!!!!"

[Rex]

I voted for Kodos.

[DC47]

I'll get to the other one later, but better GMs (or probably much more accurately "GMs I'd rather run the Yankees"): Beane, Sabean (begrudging), Cashman, Mozeliak, Huntington, Luhnow, Rizzo (I have no idea what's wrong there beyond Williams, because that roster is stellar), Alderson ... I'd pick Hoyer, Antonetti, Zaidi (for no reason other than Friedman picked him) too but I'd have trouble honestly arguing for them. Duquette and Moore are probably in the same bucket as Dombrowski in that I don't like half their moves or more but can't argue with the results. So I guess there are eight I think are clearing better options and a lot more total horseshit GMs than I realized offhand.

That's an interesting list. I share most of your opinions, though obviously I separate Dombrowski and a few others, as above, from the crowd of good top baseball execs. A few thoughts:

- You don't have Friedman on your list. To me he is the only one that is clearly, no doubts, right there with Dombrowski and Beane.

- I too consider Sabean a top exec, but have a hard time getting past some of the dumbest deals in baseball history. Signing Zito was only the worst of several really bad moves. But, he wins. So what he does right (e.g., developing starting pitchers) is obviously overwhelming the transactions that seem the sign of a Dodgers fan who has infiltrated the Giants front office. I suppose most of them are in the distant past, so I should let them go. Perhaps they were just part of his learning curve.

- Many people would dismiss Cashman as simply the fortunate middleman between the Yankees money and over-paid superstars who so often have bad years before their excessive contracts run out. The ARod fiasco, the wheels falling off Tex and Sabathia, etc. It's obvious that he has had far greater resources than any other baseball exec during his career. But his financial advantage has decreased in recent years, and he has been getting it done on the field almost every season, in a division that has been the toughest in baseball over the past 15 or so years. I'd say he deserves considerable credit. He's certainly well above average in my view, if not in the pantheon where I place Dombrowski and his peers.

- A bunch of your choices as 'better than Dombrowski' are high on my list. But certainly not better than Dombrowski. They either haven't overcome much adversity and/or haven't done well for long enough for me to be that impressed. Mozeliak, Luhnow, Antontetti, Rizzo, and even Moore are on that list. Hoyer hasn't done enough to even join this group, much less the Dombrowski elite. And really, Zaidi? Perhaps you are joking. He's been a GM for less than a year. And any credit for what happened in that time has to be shared with Friedman, who is likely to be playing the senior part of the traditional GM role.

It seems to me that your taste in baseball execs is quite a bit like your taste in players -- you overvalue prospects with tools. I am with you in believing that Addison Russell is a high-value prospect, despite his K rate and poor hitting this year. But I am more convinced that Miguel Cabrera will be good next year. Dombrowski is Cabrera. Your guys are more like Russell. Each has a good shot at doing well in the future. But none is close to Cabrera right now, and none has more than a modest shot at having a better career.

- Speaking of promising shortstops, have you checked in on the one we discussed a year ago re: the David Price trade -- Willy Adames? I see that he's having his third good year in the minors, handing high A ball quite well at the Addison Russell-ish age of 19. I imagine he is moving way up on the prospect lists. Perhaps he was not actually a low-value throw-in for the Price deal after all?

[mister d]

- I don't list Friedman for the same reason I don't list Epstein; they aren't current GMs.

- Agree on Sabean but he's beyond dispute now with the team's success. Me not understanding it doesn't mean I can dismiss it.

- Cashman has been absolved publicly of the second Rodriguez deal. If there's fault there, it's not resigning when ownership went over him. Sabathia and Teixeira (and Burnett) led to a World Series, so I have trouble disliking that offseason. Second Sabathia deal is bad although at the time I still thought he had the chance to be the type who was strong until 40. If I'm voting for a GM HoF, I don't see myself voting Cashman just because he had rings. What I think he's done best for almost two decades is the moves he hasn't made in terms of never trading away the guy that really, really hurts, although keeping Cano required a large degree of luck.

- Hoyer: Preference towards the way he builds a roster, obviously with a large aspect of future projection. Similar I guess to Dombrowski walking into a bad situation and moving things upwards, but much more the way I like.

- Zaidi: 100% my way of picking Friedman.

- Russell: Like the Fister trade, it's more process (usage of asset) than result. Unless you *know* Russell or Myers won't pan out for whatever reason (unfixable hole in swing, loves crack, etc), I don't think you can trade them for anything less than a Stanton package. #2 starters with less than 75 starts under your control definitely not.

- Price: I thought Detroit got that about as right as you can, basically the anti-Samardzija handling in Oakland. Getting a year of starts and the best prospect in the combined deals in Norris is a huge win to me.

[mister d]

Thinking about this a little more, the only front offices I'd take without reservations over the current NYY is Chicago (NL) and Oakland. Probably a few I'd shrug about in a trade and the list would have been longer before this deadline and showing the commitment to the kids.

[mister d]

(And even Beane might worry me a bit given the Russell and Donaldson deals.)

[DC47]

All good points, and I largely agree. I especially appreciate your unpacking of the Cashman era. I hate the Yankees, since the tragic '61 season when they beat one of the best Tigers' teams in history. I enjoyed watching the Tigers beat them, in person, in the play-offs. My 10 year-old daughter got to hear two hours of "Jeter Sucks" chanting as we were the first into the standing room only area before the game. A great formative experience for her. But still, Cashman keeps them competitive year after year. It is not as easy as people think, even with a great financial advantage over the mere mortals.

Regarding excluding Theo and Andy, I think you may be a bit rigid on the GM thing. What we are really discussing is baseball execs who have the authority to hire a team of people who acquire and develop players, and manage the major league team. Traditionally, this has largely been people with the GM title. But the management structure has changed with the complexity of major league teams, as well as the money at stake. There are now obvious hybrid structures, with a great variety of titles (e.g., Director of Baseball) used rather than just the old President --- GM duo. I don't follow these teams closely, but it seems to me that Epstein and Friedman, and previously Dombrowski, were hired to fulfill the higher-levels of the traditional GM role, as well as much of the traditional president's role. Getting the president job primarily means that there is no baseball exec short of ownership who can over-rule them or even fire them if things look rough. That power has great value to a sought-after exec, so they get it as part of the employment package. You now see more of the same hybrid-job tendency, for the same reason, in basketball, for example in the case of Stan Van Gundy.

When I consulted to baseball teams, addressing executive roles were part of my assignments. The power dynamics even then, when the game was less complex (e.g., less global) and the money was smaller (e.g., franchise values), could get quite intense. It was not uncommon for GMs and Presidents to engage in silent (to the public) warfare over things like who would occupy subordinate roles like scouting director, or who had final call on major deals. GMs were less independent than it seemed to the public. I think this is now more obvious, as the successful GMs with a lot of leverage are getting jobs that give them power that mere GMs don't have.

Are these highly successful GMs who are now Presidents (among other senior titles) really being given the big money to hire GMs who have anything like close to 100% of the say on major personnel decisions?

We can't know without being on the inside. But my informed guess says, not on your life. Ownership wants Theo Epstein in place so he does what he did as GM in Boston. They want his hands on the personnel levers. Not a business manager. Epstein gets a bigger title because he doesn't want a power center above him (as he experienced to his dismay in Boston). The "GM" he hired is doing a significantly smaller job than a traditional GM would be doing.

Consider how long he would survive if he substantially differed from Epstein on personnel matters. It can only be speculation, but I assume that Epstein will be highly informed about these things, and highly engaged in decisions. The GM will free him from the low-level matters that GMs traditionally have dealt with. That's helpful, as running a team is more complex than it once was. And my guess is that there will be a Vice President who frees Epstein from some of the traditional business management tasks that Presidents used to deal with. But Epstein didn't get to be a big deal because of how he addressed placing the D level prospects and hiring the single-A team's pitching coach. Ownership is fine with him passing on this stuff. But they won't be fine with him disengaging from more substantive personnel matters, as executives with similar titles have traditionally done.

It's a more hybrid management world. So excluding executives from consideration in the pool of the guys who make the personnel decisions because they are technically not GMs ignores the reality in the sport. Including the "junior GMs" because they have the title does so as well.

[mister d]

I think you're probably right in terms of president holding override power but I think it largely doesn't matter in most of those situations. Epstein + Hoyer and Beane + Forst and Shapiro + Antonetti are probably so in lockstep by now that issues are of preference versus power. Forst probably does make moves for Beane and Epstein probably does have serious input in Chicago, but its going both directions versus dictatorial.

(I think those are the three biggest linked front offices, atleast offhand. Oakland is by far the weirdest, with Forst and another guy whose name I'm blanking on having been there forever and almost certainly having offers to move up somewhere else. And its Oakland, so I can't imagine its financial. Weird team.)

((I thought the Yankees were headed in the Cleveland direction, where Cashman would move up a level and Eppler would take over as GM to avoid losing him but that doesn't look like the case anymore.))

(((Unless there was a falling out I never read about, I'd bet anything Cherington is in the Cubs front office this time next year.)))

[Giff]

So, that was a fun homestand for the Astros. 4 walk-off wins and a no-hitter. If they can go 3-3 on this trip to the Bronx and MSP, I may let myself start daydreaming about October baseball again.

[mister d]

Fangraphs has you 94.1% to the playoffs (6th best) and 3rd best WS odds. Congrats!

[tennbengal]

Yeah, I think you can safely go ahead and allow yourself to dream of the playoffs at this point.

I am dreaming of the #1 pick for the Reds (in a year where that apparently wouldn't mean a lot, of course...)

[DSafetyGuy]

MLB Network's primary game tonight is Angels-Tigers, in which Justin Verlander has faced the minimum number of batters through six innings with only a walk allowed. 5-0, DET in middle of six.

[howard]

I need something to watch until the Giants game starts--that's Perfect!

eta: i missed the walk. Too eager to be cute.

[DSafetyGuy]

Make it 7 innings and Verlander has struck out the last five (eight total), including Trout and Pujols to end the top of the 7th at a pitch count of 85.

He has gotten the fastball up to 96 a few times in the 7th, which is the first time I have started to wonder if he is completely healthy for the first time in a couple years.

[howard]

Yeah, injuries are part of the game. Blah blah blah, bitching about injuries…

Now Crawford hurt. D2d, tightness in his side after a swing and a miss. Fuckity fuck.

I like the way the little graphic "NO-HITTER THRU 72/3" updated during the double-play.

[DSafetyGuy]

I like the way the little graphic "NO-HITTER THRU 72/3" updated during the double-play.

As did I.

Make it eight innings of no-hitter due to that second double play coming following a four-pitch leadoff walk.

[mister d]

This is nice to see, like Johan a few years back.

[brian]

Turn Back The Clock night at Comerica it would appear.

[DC47]

This is nice to see, like Johan a few years back.

No, Bob Feller a few more.

[degenerasian]

So, that was a fun homestand for the Astros. 4 walk-off wins and a no-hitter. If they can go 3-3 on this trip to the Bronx and MSP, I may let myself start daydreaming about October baseball again.

Thanks for beating the Yankees twice!

[howard]

I was starting to curse MLB Network for the split screen and talking heads, until, Oh, Pedro, that's cool.