Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
* David Ortiz was indeed the MVP (with a whopping 0.368 WSPA)
* But Lester made a pretty compelling case (0.223 WSPA)
*David Ortiz was indeed the MVP (with a whopping 0.368 WSPA)
*But Lester made a pretty compelling case (0.223 WSPA)
*The Sox overcame losing nearly 1/4 of their World Series chances when Breslow was on the mound (-0.254 WSPA)
But Farrell should have been fired for not starting Napoli instead of Ortiz in St. Louis, and for not pinch hitting for Lester in Game 5. Or so I've heard.
You made up that first part. But what I've heard is that managers never make objectively terrible decisions and that they are above any serious criticism because they are Experts and have Inside Information and we want to appeal to their authority at all times while kissing their rings because we can't think for ourselves.
You made up all but the first part.
Maybe somebody's takeaway. Mine was that 80% of participants thought running Lester up to the plate was a suboptimal decision but not so awful as to justify firing the manager, maybe 10% thought it was an okay decision or even a desirable one, and the remainder calling for Farrell's firing (or summary execution.)
Maybe somebody's takeaway. Mine was that 80% of participants thought running Lester up to the plate was a suboptimal decision but not so awful as to justify firing the manager
What would an "awful" decision be by Farrell, in comparison?
Starting Napoli over Ortiz in St. Louis, of course. (-:
Yes, because everyone knew that Ortiz would hit .800 or whatever in St. Louis and be the only Red Sox player to hit, and everyone knew because they can predict the future with 100% certainty that Napoli wouldn't have contributed in St. Louis even if he'd been the starter instead.
Please stop with this.
You made up all but the first part. What I've heard is that the only true authority one can appeal to regarding managing in MLB is Joe Sheehan.
I suppose he was joking all the other times he referenced this as well.
These are great. They should do it for other series as well. Like a see-saw game 7 (2001 WS) or a big comeback (2004 ALCS).
Well, they probably had a 10% chance to win that game when Millar was up. So I'm guessing the 1/16 gets reduced to 1/50 or so. Just a guess.
Pretty close. According to BB-Reference , it was actually 2%.
The truth is that I misread that BB-Ref page. In reality BB-Ref states that the win probability for the Red Sox when they started the bottom of the ninth was 23%, not 2%, a figure which seems to have reflected the Red Sox's 1.042 OPS against Rivera in Fenway Park that year.
After Millar walked, the percentage jumped to 37%, and after Roberts' steal it was 47%. After Meuller's game tying single it hit 73%, and peaked at 83% when Damon reached first on an error after only one out, sending Mueller to third. But when the inning ended with the game still tied, it went back down to 50%.
So nobody was really all that close, and I know I never would've figured the Red Sox chances to be that high with just three outs to go against Mo, his previous struggles in Fenway aside.
HEY J-DOUG YOU #### FACE DO SOME MoRE OF THESE
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (1 members)
Page rendered in 0.4640 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed