Boy, I sure didn't see this one coming.
Royals vs Mets?
OK. Maybe the Royals aren't that surprising, although they surprised me. After the Blue Jays went all Evil Empire lite, grabbed a couple of primo free agents, and started scoring runs like a beer league softball team, I figured they would be AL champs.
And the Royals beat them.
But the Mets?
Four young starters, three with Tommy John surgeries already under their belts, David Wright not all the way back to being David Wright again, a second baseman who makes routine plays into adventures, an untested closer, and a patchwork outfield didn't inspire a lot of confidence.
This is why some of us love the game of baseball. Because you never know.
Daniel Murphy can turn into Babe Ruth, if only briefly...
So, who's going to win?
Kansas City has no obvious weaknesses, can run, have superior fielding and a great bullpen. And whatever seemingly "odd" choices Ned Yost makes usually work out. The Royals look like the better all around team. Plus, they've "been there before", for what it's worth.
Still, the Met starting pitchers are very impressive. Never bet against pitching like that. In 1963 a Yankee team with Mantle, Maris, Berra, Skowron, Pepitone, Tresh and Richardson was swept by a weaker Dodger lineup. The Dodgers just happened to have a couple of guys named Koufax and Drysdale pitching for them. And in 1969, a Baltimore team that won 109 games, lost to an inferior Mets team which had, for a week at least, stronger starting pitching.
If their pitchers perform the way they did in the NL playoffs, I can imagine the Mets sweeping the Royals, and I can't imagine the Royals sweeping the Mets under any circumstances.
So, if I were a gambler, I'd have to take the Mets...in 6.
Unless all those young guys suddenly realize what they've been able to do the last couple of weeks and completely freak-out.
No comments:
Post a Comment