Quote:
Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus
Yeah, they knocked off offensive teams that were built to hit for big time power and couldn't adjust. The cubs were able to change their approach and viola they won the world series. The jays had an amazing rotation that should have taken them all the way. The big bats let the team down in a serious way. The Cubs had a marginal advantage in the avg and obp department all year compared to the Jays but it was enough to make them much more effective against the Indians.
You talk about a lucky base hit being the difference in the playoffs....well how do you get that hit when your best hitters are literally swinging for the fences and striking/flying out on every decent pitch? It's all the approach.
Even from an entertainment perspective, baseball is way more entertaining to watch when your team isn't tossing up several sub .250 power hitters that are either on or off with no in between game by game.
|
I don't think they changed their approach. At least, the stats don't show it. Many of their big guys (Bryant/Rizzo/Schwarber) were still hitting for power and XBH throughout the playoffs
Vs. Cleveland, the cubs hit (249/316/404) vs (237/321/371) for Cleveland. Pretty much a wash.
The Cubs had crap hitting vs. the Giants (200/247/350), and it wasnt much better vs. the Dodgers (238/297/426), but in both cases they hit better than their counterparts who were equally atrocious (and it's not like those teams are big hitting teams anyway)
The Jays had a better average over the series than Cleveland, meaning more base hits. Cleveland had 3 times as many HRs as Tor and the majority were by sluggers like Santana, Napoli, and Kipnis.
Not to mention the extremely small sample size of 17-19 ABs per player, is it any wonder why we shouldn't be changing the entire team based on under 20 ABs? Our best hitter was Michael Saunders, where is the outcry to sign him? Dexter Fowler hit 233/258/467 in the WS with 2 HRs and 2 RBIs. Should we be throwing money at him because of what he did in 30 ABs?