It's really cool that the high-risk, high-reward move of starting Moore in Game 1 paid off for the Rays.

As I thought, no way the Rays are going to be able to generate enough offense to win this series.

My expertise is like buttah.

IF the Yankees get past Detroit, they are going to wish they had closed out Tampa when they had the chance.

Ehh, you can't close out everybody. Besides, it'd going to rain for 40 days and 40 nights.

And high-risk, high-reward compared to what? Starting Shields on short rest would have been higher risk, IMO. Besides, you don't start a series, even a five game series, by making the panic move of going with your ace on three days rest, especially when you still wouldn't have either your #2 or #3 on full rest for game 2. So it was either the kid or one of the back of the rotation innings eaters.

And high-risk, high-reward compared to what?

Starting Wade Davis. 99 out of 100 managers start the guy who started 29 games over the rookie with 9 career IP.

But compared to Wade Davis how much of a risk is it really? A quick glance at Davis' game logs pretty much defines high-risk, high-reward. And like I said, I think the move most of the talking heads were looking for was Shields on three days rest, and 100 out of 100 managers don't go that way.

But compared to Wade Davis how much of a risk is it really? A quick glance at Davis' game logs pretty much defines high-risk, high-reward.

(Relative) veteran status usually blinds the average MLB manager, especially when it comes to October baseball, where presumably you need the grit of an Omar Vizquel or the arthritis of a Tony Bautista to secure that championship.

99 out of 100 managers start the guy who started 29 games over the rookie with 9 career IP.

Thankfully, for me, Joe Maddon is that 1 singular manager. Apparently, thinking outside the box is not particularly difficult when the box measures 1mm on a side.

And high-risk, high-reward compared to what?

I think the refreshing risk isn't so much winning or losing as it is Maddon not going for the cover your ass move. Starting Moore was the right choice, but it's exactly the kind of choice that if it didn't work Maddon would get all kinds of heat for starting an "untested rookie".

I think you're confusing what risk Maddon was taking when you ask that question. The risk isn't simply dealing with winning and losing but also about blame.

Nobody says a word if Moore doesn't pitch at all in the postseason. Nobody says boo if Moore is a back of the pen reliever for the postseason. So by putting him in the first game as a starter Maddon is assuming a ton of risk should Moore flame out.

I think the refreshing risk isn't so much winning or losing as it is Maddon not going for the cover your ass move.

I think it might be less risky than normal since they came back from 9 down in a month.

AJM's right, there is a "house money" factor involved here (or is the better term "borrowed time"?) Hideous as that game was to watch, it was almost redeemed for me as a Rangers fan by seeing such an amazing pitching performance. Hats off to Moore, and to Maddon.