Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

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.

   1. Hugh Jorgan Posted: October 16, 2007 at 04:41 AM (#2578767)
I like Beckett in game 4 for 3 reasons. One is he only threw about 80 pitches in game 1, two is he can then come back for game 7 on full rest if needed, and the most obvious is that on 3 days rest I reckon he is just better then Wake(no sabermetrics there, I'm going with Tim McCarvers gut). I only followed the game on the gameday but it seemed like we had plenty of opportunities. Bases loaded no outs in the 2nd, Papi lead off double in another inning followed by a Lowell single should've yielded a run. I thought before the game that Dice-K would give up 3-4 runs which I figured would be manageable. The pen was great as usual; well at least the guys that will only be given a chance from now on; that exludes you Mssrs. Gagne and Lopez!
It reminded me of heaps of regular season games we lost where we'd get 8-10 hits coupled with several walks and only get a run or two...very frustrating
   2. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: October 16, 2007 at 04:50 AM (#2578783)
i thought matsuzaka's control was crap, which was exacerbated by an ump with an inconsistent, but generally tight strike zone.

the offense is manny and papi. when they suck, everything sucks.
   3. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: October 16, 2007 at 04:56 AM (#2578792)
Before the series, I didn't want to see Beckett in Game 4 unless it was 0-3. But after two less than stellar performances from Schill and Dice (frankly, I've seen about all the Dice-K-didn't-pitch-bad,-he-just-got-bad-results starts I need), I can see Beckett in 4 and Wake in 5, if just to keep Schilling on his extended rest. That also puts Mirabelli against a lefty, giving him a chance to suck less than he would against a right-handed starter.
   4. Nasty Nate Posted: October 16, 2007 at 05:04 AM (#2578804)
Pedroia is striking out an uncharacteristically high amount (where's your veteran-playoff-presence is a myth messiah now? jk) I'm sure Francona will smartly give him the bellhorn treatment and keep him at the top of the lineup until he hits some key homers later in the series.

coco .... we are getting near ellsbury pinch hitting with guys on in the 6th or later territory.

jd drew .... his weak groundouts to the right side annoy me more than other people's

'Tek... awesome awesome homer. obviously has some sort of voodoo on him that he cannot do anything with the bases loaded, and due to his lineup spot he is disproportionately in that situation.
   5. Nasty Nate Posted: October 16, 2007 at 05:09 AM (#2578815)
Fox broadcast seems improved from other years. Their ultra-slo-mo camera is great. and they didnt go overboard with the close ups or miss any pitches that i remember.

i liked the little insight into Lofton delaying before stepping in the box and Claytons mic'ed comments et cet

was it just me or did McCarver make a point, and then after a beat say: "thats a really good point" about his own comment?
   6. Dan Posted: October 16, 2007 at 05:24 AM (#2578866)
If they really start Wakefield tomorrow I will be very, very disappointed. Beckett is the Sox best shot at evening up the series, and then like you said, you can start Wakefield in Game 5 if you want, and then have Schilling in Game 6, if you really want the extra rest that badly.
   7. Dave Cyprian Posted: October 16, 2007 at 05:30 AM (#2578878)
Start Beckett. Are you freaking kidding me Francona. Ask your best buddy Schilling what to do with horses.
   8. Hugh Jorgan Posted: October 16, 2007 at 05:34 AM (#2578892)
Nate I agree, Tek is a carcass with the bases jammed. Its some sort of alternative Seinfeldion bizarro world thing. Is it just me or does he come up with the bases loaded more often then anyone else in the lineup?

Ellsbury needs to enter the game at some stage for some one from the sixth inning on. Either Drew or coco would be fine with me.
   9. Hugh Jorgan Posted: October 16, 2007 at 05:40 AM (#2578937)
Geez the Rockies just advanced. 7 playoff games in row, how many is that total 12? 14?
   10. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: October 16, 2007 at 05:45 AM (#2578952)
10 in a row.

but 21 of 22. Will the al pennant winner slow them down? I am starting to think they are on magic happy super-roid juice of some sort.
   11. John DiFool2 Posted: October 16, 2007 at 05:51 AM (#2578969)
Ellsbury probably should be starting.
   12. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: October 16, 2007 at 05:54 AM (#2578976)
Will the al pennant winner slow them down?

Yes. The Sox and Indians are both much better teams than the Rockies.
   13. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: October 16, 2007 at 05:56 AM (#2578980)
I'm with John on Ellsbury. Coco can #### off, he sux.
   14. JB H Posted: October 16, 2007 at 06:03 AM (#2578990)
Agree about Daisuke. He's looked fine.

What an infuriating game. The top of the 2nd, Kenny Lofton's HR off the top of the wall, all the double plays, the terrible ump. Fdkfljsdklfs.

It sure would be nice to have Buchholz going tomorrow
   15. Chip Posted: October 16, 2007 at 06:05 AM (#2578994)
Yes. The Sox and Indians are both much better teams than the Rockies.



Yeah, but Charlie Montfort just alluded to the fact that a certain monotheistic deity is on their side: "Praise God, and praise everybody that's in His Stadium." Which must have come as news to the beer vendor that thought it owned the naming rights.

No way The Big One can let the AL champ win now, is there? If he's up to snuff, it won't be locusts but blizzards in the top half of every inning played in Coors next week.

The snow factor probably means The Big One intends that Cleveland will be the victim - after all, they're the ones who had the start of their season whited out, so it must end that way.
   16. Dr. Vaux Posted: October 16, 2007 at 06:11 AM (#2579006)
Perhaps he worships Mr Coors.
   17. Nasty Nate Posted: October 16, 2007 at 06:16 AM (#2579018)
the AL is done this year
   18. Swedish Chef Posted: October 16, 2007 at 06:24 AM (#2579029)
Dice does run up some big pitch counts quickly, though.
   19. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: October 16, 2007 at 06:29 AM (#2579036)
Yes. The Sox and Indians are both much better teams than the Rockies.

biff, I'm telling you, it ain't natural. There's voodooo or something out here.
   20. Best Dressed Chicken in Town Posted: October 16, 2007 at 06:32 AM (#2579042)
a rather unimpressive-looking Jake Westbrook

I only watched from the 4th inning on, but this seems quite incorrect to me.
   21. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: October 16, 2007 at 09:39 AM (#2579073)
Nishigawa had a very good game. Got help from the D and some absolute BS strikezone/BABIP, but he threw some good pitches.
   22. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 16, 2007 at 11:14 AM (#2579084)
I thought Dice-K had good stuff. He missed location badly on the first pitch to Lofton - you can see Varitek's glove move from the outside corner to the middle of the plate - but that's probably an out in Fenway, and otherwise he pitched pretty well.

The bottom of the lineup has turned back into the liability they were for most of the season, and Pedroia's slump has extended it. I wonder whether an Ellsbury start is at all on the horizon. Maybe down 3-1, but probably not otherwise.

Given that we all think Matsuzaka looked pretty good, why is there a proposal to pitch Beckett in Game 4 and Wakefield in Game 5? This would give us Schilling on extra rest in Game 6, but then we'd skip Matsuzaka for Beckett. It's hard for me to accept that Wake is a better bet than Matsuzaka and Schilling on normal rest, and a better bet by a large enough margin that we should lose a Matsuzaka start instead of a Wakefield start.
   23. karlmagnus Posted: October 16, 2007 at 11:59 AM (#2579093)
Darren you're cuckoo. Wake is quite clearly by results the #2 pitcher on this staff as he has been for years. Go join the Jimy Williams school of Management.
   24. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: October 16, 2007 at 12:27 PM (#2579104)
1) If anybody in the Boston newspaper DARES to suggest taking Pedroia out of the lineup that person should be lynched.

2) I don't like Beckett on 3 days rest, I certainly don't like Curt pitching game 5 instead of Game 6. That being said, if Wakefield is still hurt, we're royally f!@#ed.

3) That ump is F!@#ing b!@#!@#$

4) Imagine if we had traded for a GOOD pitcher instead of Gagne. We could actually ahve somebody shouldering Okajima's innings! ;suicide:

5) I'm in the 2nd day of my Psych Rotation. Basically the prof today accused half of Therapy of having Nihilistic Delusions.

Clearly that old bastard doesn't cheer for the Red Sox.
   25. bwright Posted: October 16, 2007 at 12:34 PM (#2579110)
We're getting nothing out of Elsbury on the bench, at some point Francona needs to just put him. Last night would have been a perfect night to put his speed to use over Drew, Elsbury is likely to leg out an infield hit or bunt, manufacture a run, break up a double play. Also Pedroia seems to be struggling, could it be his shoulder from the first series? I like Francona as a manager, but the stay with your guys thing, doesn't work in a playoff series like it does in over the long series. Was also surprised when he yanked Dice-OK, who did pitch well, and only Kenny Lofton's HgH based resurgence home run really hurt him. Ortiz, Manny, Lowell is just a brutal DP combo - if JD Drew was still alive he'd be great in between Manny and Lowell.

I'd say you go with Beckett. You can still pitch Wake or Lester if he does poorly. Beckett is so much better than everyone else on the staff, that you need to try and maximize his innings right now.

Poor construction of the post season roster - Gagne and Lopez are one out only guys and Lester has no bullpen experience - wouldn't Tavarez have been a better option than all three? But since its against Francona's religion to use a pinch hitter it probably doesn't matter.
   26. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 16, 2007 at 12:55 PM (#2579127)
Did anyone else get annoyed by that Fox trax pitch thing? It seems they just plot where the ball is caught, and totally ignore the flight path. The announcers kept talking about breaking pitches being outside that seemed to me to catch a lot of plate before breaking down and away.
   27. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: October 16, 2007 at 12:58 PM (#2579130)
if JD Drew was still alive he'd be great in between Manny and Lowell.


We should lock up Mrs Drew for necrophilia.
   28. Mister High Standards Posted: October 16, 2007 at 01:05 PM (#2579145)
I'm just not excited about this series. I guess I'd rather see the sox win than lose, but really I don't particularly care. I don't understand my malaise, I just don't find the story lines behind this redsox team all that compelling.
   29. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: October 16, 2007 at 01:08 PM (#2579147)
Wake is quite clearly by results the #2 pitcher on this staff as he has been for years.
What results are those? His ERA, higher than everyone who started a game for the Red Sox this season save Tavarez? His 5.25 ERA after the break? Or his confidence raising 24 ER in 24.2 IP in September?

Starting Beckett is the right call here, and I think any plan which gives Wakefield is a start is begging for trouble, km's bizarre crush aside.
   30. bunyon Posted: October 16, 2007 at 01:09 PM (#2579150)
I don't get the folks talking about how good Dice-K looked. I mean, he didn't look terrible, but he certainly didn't look "good". He looked an average 3rd or 4th starter who is inefficient as all hell. I wouldn't go out of my way to make sure he gets another start and, depending on Wakefield's health I'd easily belief he'd be more effective than Matsuzaka.
   31. JC in DC Posted: October 16, 2007 at 01:35 PM (#2579177)
I agree w/Bunyon. And, I'm happy Tek homered. Anything to keep him on Boston next year is good for Yankee fans.
   32. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 16, 2007 at 01:38 PM (#2579179)
Wake is quite clearly by results the #2 pitcher on this staff as he has been for years.

Wow, I saw this quoted first in 29 but I didn't even have to look to know who said it. Spare us, Mrs. Duquette.

It likely would not have changed the outcome, but that 3-0 strike call to Manny in the 6th was the single worst balls/strikes call I've ever seen. Really incredible.

I like Francona as a manager, but the stay with your guys thing, doesn't work in a playoff series like it does in over the long series.

I disagree. If you think you've got your best lineup on the field, and it's the same lineup that got you the best record in baseball, why should you change that in a short series? You can't let yourself get caught up in the magnifying glass of the playoffs - the importance of each outcome is inflated, yes, but the weight of those outcomes should not be proportionally inflated in your decision making.

For example, even if you assume Drew is really only a .375/.425 hitter, that's probably still better than what Ellsbury is at the moment. Maybe Ellsbury is more likely to leg out an infield single, but who is more likely to give you an extra base hit? Or just get on base? Maybe it is Ellsbury, for all I know, but I don't think we have nearly enough evidence to say he is.
   33. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 16, 2007 at 01:39 PM (#2579180)
agree w/Bunyon. And, I'm happy Tek homered. Anything to keep him on Boston next year is good for Yankee fans.

He's signed through '08, JC. He'll be back next year anyway. And it's not like he sucks - he's still an above average catcher offensively, believe it or not.
   34. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: October 16, 2007 at 01:42 PM (#2579186)
And yeah, that 3-0 call was horrific. When an umpire has a call aganist the Red Sox that makes a roomful of Yankee fans involuntarily go "Oh!" you know it's bad.
   35. Toby Posted: October 16, 2007 at 01:47 PM (#2579191)
Game 2 was wildly entertaining. Game 3 was like watching a funeral. The whole way. It was hideous.

The turning point for me was when McCarver and Buck started talking about how great Matsuzaka looked in the early going. I yelled at my TV, "DON'T JINX HIM!!!" and on the next pitch Lofton homered. From that point it seemed to me the outcome was inevitable. All the crappy things that happen to doomed teams started happening to us. Ortiz gets hit by a batted ball. At least twice, a Sox hitter (Manny was one, I forget the other) had a 3-ball count and took a pitch that was clearly way off the plate, only to be called a strike (and the hitter ended up making a nonproductive out).

My wife said, in the fourth inning, that she had never, in 15 years, seen me so grouchy watching a baseball game. And I have to agree with her. I felt like I was trapped in my personal Hell, one in which Dice nibbles perpetually and weak double play grounders parade by.

P.S. I am fully on board with Wake, not Beckett, in Game 4. I would have no problem bringing Beckett back on three days' rest for a Game 7, but not for a Game 4. I'm concerned that he'd be less effective in Game 4 (on the three days rest) and then again less effective in Game 7 (on four days rest, but after a start on three days rest).
   36. chris p Posted: October 16, 2007 at 01:53 PM (#2579196)
I disagree. If you think you've got your best lineup on the field

the red sox' best lineup includes jacoby ellsbury playing center field ... and probably leading off.
   37. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 16, 2007 at 02:05 PM (#2579206)
the red sox' best lineup includes jacoby ellsbury playing center field ... and probably leading off.

Touche.
   38. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: October 16, 2007 at 02:13 PM (#2579222)
I'm just not excited about this series. I guess I'd rather see the sox win than lose, but really I don't particularly care. I don't understand my malaise, I just don't find the story lines behind this redsox team all that compelling.


I'm with you. I still just think it's cool that they won the division, and I like the Indians too much to be very upset if the Red Sox lose to them.
   39. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: October 16, 2007 at 02:28 PM (#2579261)
that 3-0 strike call to Manny in the 6th was the single worst balls/strikes call I've ever seen

Did you tune in just in time for the 3-0 pitch? Ball one was pretty clearly a strike. The 3-0 pitch was obviously a make-up call. He'd have done it sooner if one of the other pitches had been close.
   40. Joel W Posted: October 16, 2007 at 02:35 PM (#2579276)
What a Murphy's law game. Seriously, everything. Every groundball went through for them. Ortiz smoked two balls, and ended up w/ 3 outs. Lofton's ball barely went over. Etc. Etc.

Pitch Beckett, it's obvious.
   41. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 16, 2007 at 03:24 PM (#2579362)
Did you tune in just in time for the 3-0 pitch? Ball one was pretty clearly a strike. The 3-0 pitch was obviously a make-up call. He'd have done it sooner if one of the other pitches had been close.

Just re-watched it on mlb.tv - it was a very close pitch, yes, but it doesn't come *close* to what a bad call the fourth pitch was. Even so, the idea of a "make-up call" is just silly.

Bad umpiring is bad umpiring, and it certainly cut both ways last night, not just against the Red Sox.
   42. plink Posted: October 16, 2007 at 03:39 PM (#2579374)
Pitch Beckett, it's obvious.

It's obvious if the season ended at the ALCS. But it's pretty clear that the Sox' front office is playing for a World Series win, and a loss in the WS is no better than a loss in the ALCS. From that point of view, pitching Beckett is very wrong, especially down 1-2.

In order to win the ALCS, they have to count on the series going 7 games, in which case the options are:

a) 2 ALCS starts, 2 WS starts from Beckett at less than full strength, and lowered effectiveness from *all* other starters.

b) 1 ALCS start, 3 WS starts from Beckett at full strength, higher effectiveness from all starters.

Option b) seems to lower the odds of winning the ALCS, but *overall* raises the odds of winning the WS.
   43. bunyon Posted: October 16, 2007 at 03:41 PM (#2579377)
Why do they need the LCS to go 7? Pitch Beckett in game 4 and if you win in 6, he's ready for game 1 of the WS. Thus, 2 ALCS starts, 3 WS starts from your best (and right now only really good) pitcher.

I'd still go with Wakefield because I just don't trust short rest for the modern pitcher.
   44. Answer Guy Posted: October 16, 2007 at 03:44 PM (#2579379)
It's obvious if the season ended at the ALCS. But it's pretty clear that the Sox' front office is playing for a World Series win, and a loss in the WS is no better than a loss in the ALCS. From that point of view, pitching Beckett is very wrong, especially down 1-2.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the Red Sox need to actually get to the World Series to win it.
   45. villageidiom Posted: October 16, 2007 at 03:54 PM (#2579392)
I'm just not excited about this series. I guess I'd rather see the sox win than lose, but really I don't particularly care. I don't understand my malaise, I just don't find the story lines behind this redsox team all that compelling.

Well, aren't you Mr. high standards? Oh, wait, I guess you are.

I'm compelled, I'm for Wake in Game 4, and I don't understand why everyone is acting like being down 2-1 is insurmountable without Beckett pitching all the remaining innings. If we have the same pitching matchups in Games 5 and 6 as in Games 1 and 2 I think we have a good chance of taking both. And our chances are decent in the other matchups as well.
   46. Textbook Editor Posted: October 16, 2007 at 03:58 PM (#2579399)
So if there's a rainout tonight, I'm assuming they lose the off-day on Wednesday. Does this factor into the whole "pitch Beckett in Game 4" scenario? You could do the following:

Game 4 (Wed) Beckett on normal rest
Game 5 (Thurs) Wakefield (or Schilling on 4 days' rest)
Game 6 (Sat) Schilling or Matsusaka (or both?)
Game 7 (Sun) Beckett on 3 days rest backed by Schilling/Matsusaka (whoever doesn't pitch Game 6) & Johnny Wholestaff.

I think the above makes sense--and makes it more likely the Red Sox win this in 7--if there's a rainout tonight, so I think I'm going to be hoping that happens.
   47. chris p Posted: October 16, 2007 at 03:59 PM (#2579401)
i don't have enough information to decide whether to pitch wake, beckett, or lester. is wake's shoulder OK? do they think beckett can pitch at full strength? if they think beckett can go at full strength, why not pitch him? if he can't and wake's shoulder isn't 100%, go with lester.

however, there are 2 things i'm fairly confident of: 1: as mentioned above, i'd put ellsbury in center field for this game and the rest of the playoffs. coco's a perfectly fine dave roberts. and 2: gagne needs to be put on the DL like the yankees did with clemens ... activate tavarez i guess. or brandon moss.
   48. Joel W Posted: October 16, 2007 at 03:59 PM (#2579403)
Suppose pitching beckett means the sox have a 45% chance of winning the LCS now, but reduces their chances of winning the world series over the rockies to 50%. EV=22% chance of winning. Suppose not pitching him means they only have a 35% chance of winning the LCS (which is what prospectus says), it would mean that having him for three times in the WS would have to mean that they win the WS 68% of the time when that happens. Now obviously I'm pulling those numbers out of my ass to some degree, but I think there's such a premium on just surviving now.

A 10% increase in winning the ALCS would have to be matched by an 18% increase in winning the world series. Let's say it's just 40% instead of 35% if beckett goes twice. EVWS=20% if he goes in game 4. What increase would he have to give in the world series? Well 20%=35%*x, which is about 58%. Again, a 5% increase in winning the LCS is worth 8% in the WS.

Is my math just stupid wrong here? That's entirely possible, but it seems right, and intuitive.
   49. Textbook Editor Posted: October 16, 2007 at 04:00 PM (#2579405)
And yes, I do realize a rainout means we'd also miss out on Paul Byrd and instead get Sabathia for Game 4.
   50. Textbook Editor Posted: October 16, 2007 at 04:02 PM (#2579411)
I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that Beckett pitches Game 1 of the WS and then games 4 & 7 on 3 days' rest. There's just no way the Red Sox do this unless perhaps they're down 0-3 going into Game 4, and even then I'm not sure they do it.
   51. Joel W Posted: October 16, 2007 at 04:03 PM (#2579412)
I guess the most wrong part is the change in chance of winning with Beckett on the mound tonight over Wakefield. With Wake it's probably like 50/50, and with Beckett it's probably like 10% to 15% higher. What would that translate to their chances of taking the series? 3-5% more?
   52. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: October 16, 2007 at 04:04 PM (#2579414)
The main thing that confuses me about the Indians is why all their Latin players look like white guys.
   53. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: October 16, 2007 at 04:13 PM (#2579431)
The main thing that confuses me about the Indians is why all their Latin players look like white guys.

Because many "Latin" players ARE white guys? Just like many "Latin" players are black guys.
   54. Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play Posted: October 16, 2007 at 04:21 PM (#2579444)
I know that. Just that I hadn't seen any actual Indians games this season until Game 1, and about four different times I had the thought "Who is that guy?" and was surprised when it turned out to be one of the Latin guys I hadn't seen before rather than one of the American guys I hadn't seen before. Cabrera, Gutierrez, Betancourt, Martinez (although I'd seen Martinez before).

And Peralta doesn't look like a shortstop, and Sabathia doesn't look like a guy who could survive throwing more than 80 innings a season. Just a bunch of players who prove that you can't judge a book by its cover.
   55. plink Posted: October 16, 2007 at 05:46 PM (#2579564)
Is my math just stupid wrong here? That's entirely possible, but it seems right, and intuitive.

Your math seems right to me, but I think the front office has done this math, and decided that 1) the drop-off from 3-day Beckett to Wake is not that much, and 2) the benefit of early Beckett and rested starters give a bigger lift in the WS.

Note that pitching Beckett in game 7 of the ALCS leads to the possibility of losing the WS before getting a 2nd start form Beckett.

At the risk of stating the obvious, the Red Sox need to actually get to the World Series to win it.

Absolutely true. But this front office has made it clear (as in the regular season, when they starting resting as soon as they clinched a playoff spot, as opposed to the division) that it makes no difference to them if they lose in the WS or the ALCS. So they are taking steps to give them the greatest shot of winning the WS (even if that menas a greater chance of losing the ALCS).

I may or may not agree with that, but it's nice to see a plan, and the willingness to follow through with that plan.
   56. Answer Guy Posted: October 16, 2007 at 06:49 PM (#2579640)
But this front office has made it clear (as in the regular season, when they starting resting as soon as they clinched a playoff spot, as opposed to the division) that it makes no difference to them if they lose in the WS or the ALCS.

That may be true, but I think that's poor logic on their part.

There's a lot of uncertainty as to what would happen in a Red Sox-Rockies World Series, or any World Series. The Red Sox' path to hoisting the trophy would seem more likely to be a relentless*, patient offensive attack that grinds down Colorado pitching in a way that they're not used to seeing, and in a way that the Rockies hitters would be unlikely to match. (That's probably Cleveland's path to winning the whole thing as well should they prevail in this series, since their offense can be similarly tough on opposing pitchers.) I certainly don't want to say it's immaterial who you pitch in these games, but I'd expect high-scoring games either way and I like my chances in slugfests vs. the Rockies.

In an ideal situation you'd want your pitching staff to be rested and ready for the World Series. But that won't do you any good if these rested players are watching the World Series on TV.

* Although the way that our 7-8-9-1 hitters are hitting at the moment, we may not be relentless enough to make this really work.
   57. Joel W Posted: October 16, 2007 at 08:27 PM (#2579813)
Plink are you saying they'd rather have a 30&#xWL;CS*70&#xWW;S versus a 60&#xWL;CS*60&#xWW;S so that they actually win the world series fewer times?
   58. Mattbert Posted: October 16, 2007 at 09:25 PM (#2579864)
Colorado is stacked with power LHPs whom the Sox have not seen before. We should just throw in the towel now and let Cleveland take the smiting at the hands of the chosen.
   59. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 16, 2007 at 09:32 PM (#2579874)
So, they're reporting on the radio (via SoSH) that the only change in the lineup is Mirabelli starting for Tek.

Drew-Crisp-Mirabelli-Lugo in the bottom half of the batting order. Ugh.

I guess one can hope that Byrd's platoon split lunacy gets JD back into some sort of rhythm, but, ugh.
   60. Mattbert Posted: October 16, 2007 at 10:31 PM (#2579952)
Holy moly, that's a brutal bottom half. The least they could do is start Ellsbury over Crisp in hopes of offsetting the Varitek-Mirabelli switch. I know I argued that Crisp should be the starter in a prior thread, but I think this club needs an offensive jolt right now moreso than the best possible CF defense.
   61. plink Posted: October 16, 2007 at 10:44 PM (#2579969)
Plink are you saying they'd rather have a 30WL;CS*70WW;S versus a 60WL;CS*60WW;S so that they actually win the world series fewer times?

Definitely not - I think they'd rather have (30% CS)(70% WS) than (40% CS)(50% WS). You can certainly quibble with the numbers, but it seems clear (to me) that this is their decision process.
   62. Mattbert Posted: October 17, 2007 at 03:45 AM (#2580775)
Dougie actually had a couple of the better PAs tonight; saw a ton of pitches, fouled off some tough strikes, and didn't swing at anything that was well out of the zone.
   63. Darren Posted: October 17, 2007 at 03:51 AM (#2580781)
This idea that 'the Red Sox are playing to win it all and not worrying about just the ALCS' is nuts. In 2004, they threw everything they had into pulling out the ALCS and then let the chips fall where they may for the World Series. I don't see why they would have changed things up since then.
   64. Mattbert Posted: October 17, 2007 at 04:26 AM (#2580803)
I agree with Darren. And if for some reason they are playing for the WS and not the ALCS, it's spectacularly dumb. Anything can happen tomorrow; you should always play to win today in the postseason.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dingbat_Charlie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.5036 seconds
60 querie(s) executed