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.

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 
   1. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 08, 2007 at 03:07 AM (#2516264)
Should Hinske get kicked to the curb?

If somebody in the Boston Metropolitan Area would be so kind as to tire iron his legs, that would be nice. Thanks.

Don't do it for me, do it for yourselves, and do it for Jacoby.

Is Eric Gagne going on the DL?
   2. Xander Posted: September 08, 2007 at 03:09 AM (#2516266)
No one goes to the DL this time of year.
   3. Textbook Editor Posted: September 08, 2007 at 03:11 AM (#2516268)
Cross-posted to start things off:

Here's one attempt at a postseason roster, at least for the ALDS:

INF - Youkilis, Pedroia, Lugo, Lowell, Cora, Ortiz, Hinske
C - Varitek, Cash
OF - Manny, Coco, Drew, Kielty, Ellsbury
SP - Matsusaka, Beckett, Schilling, Wakefield
RP - Lester, Papelbon, Okajima, Buchholz, Gagne, MDC, Timlin

OK, I'd go LOOGY-less, but if you wanted to swap Hinske for Lopez or make Lester the de facto LOOGY and keep Hinske I'm fine with it. HInske does give you some 1B flexibility, but with the new rule that you can DL a player and "call up" an eligible player to take his spot during the playoffs (though the "playoff DL'd" player would be forced to miss the remainder of that series AND the entire next series), I think it becomes less necessary to worry about a catastropic injury to Youkilis and then having to have Ortiz at 1B for the rest of the series.

Lester, Buchholz, and Ellsbury come in courtesy the F-Rod loophole. This would necessitate Mirabelli being left off the playoff roster so they could use all 3 DL loopholes (Clement, Donnelly & Mirabelli).

I'd also maybe start Lester in a Game 4 over Wakefield, but it all depends on which hot hand (or cold hand) you want to ride. I like the idea of starting Wakefield but having Buchholz "shadow" him and if he gets in a jam bringing Buchholz in for 3-4 innings of work to save the pen as well as give a different look.
   4. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 08, 2007 at 03:11 AM (#2516269)
No one goes to the DL this time of year.

Not even the 60 day DL to free up another spot on the 40 man?

That's a bit harsh for Gagne, but if somebody answers my call for violence, then you never know.
   5. Textbook Editor Posted: September 08, 2007 at 03:13 AM (#2516272)
Gagne's last game was pre-August 31st. In theory they could retro-DL him to create yet another "K-Rod loophole" slot for the postseason roster... assuming that they really think he'd be unable to go/be healthy by the time the playoffs roll around.
   6. Darren Posted: September 08, 2007 at 03:15 AM (#2516275)
I'd go loogy-less too, but Tito never would. Lopez is on the postseason roster for sure. From the way they've talked about it, I don't think Buc will be there. But they've fooled me before on Pap's role and this usage, so I guess it's possible they stretch their innings limit for Buc. My guess is that Lopez takes either Buc's or Lester's place.
   7. chris p Posted: September 08, 2007 at 03:29 AM (#2516282)
i could see them going without a loogy if they face anaheim.
   8. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: September 08, 2007 at 04:56 AM (#2516305)
i could see them going without a loogy if they face anaheim.
And not have someone come in to face the unholy demon that is occupying Garrett Anderson's body? Blasphemy!

If the Yankees win the Wild Card, the Sox only face LAA if they (the Angels) have a worse record than Cleveland, right? Of course, it's so tight everywhere (with the Tigers only being 3 behind the Yankees and the Indians only 4 behind the Red Sox for the best record, with LAA 2) it's probably too early to discuss seeding.
   9. Lassus Posted: September 08, 2007 at 05:10 AM (#2516310)
I'd also maybe start Lester in a Game 4 over Wakefield, but it all depends on which hot hand (or cold hand) you want to ride.


I guess I don't understand why you wouldn't simply start Buchholz over Lester and make Lester the emergency Wakefield solution. Isn't Buchholz about a million times hotter than Lester? And, simply better?
   10. konaforever Posted: September 08, 2007 at 05:13 AM (#2516312)
I guess I don't understand why you wouldn't simply start Buchholz over Lester and make Lester the emergency Wakefield solution. Isn't Buchholz about a million times hotter than Lester? And, simply better?


Buchholz has an innings cap, hence why he's not starting now, and won't be this year.
   11. Lassus Posted: September 08, 2007 at 05:21 AM (#2516315)
Buchholz has an innings cap, hence why he's not starting now, and won't be this year.


Well, I knew about that innings cap. He's still 12 2/3rds innings away. I am among those who find the hyper-paranoia on Buchholz and Chamberlain's innings to be a bit tiresome. There is a difference between careful and intelligent, and just plain hissy-fit. And if one of them goes down now with the rules invoked, there will just be a "SEEEEEE he threw too many" when really it could be a trillion reasons.
   12. Darren Posted: September 08, 2007 at 11:51 AM (#2516364)
It may be tiresome, but it's what the teams involved think is best for those pitchers. And maybe they're wrong, but they have a lot more information than we do about this sort of thing. It's not the same as say, sitting down Adam Dunn because he K's too much, which we outsiders would be pretty easily able to see is a bad move.
   13. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 08, 2007 at 12:19 PM (#2516373)
Buchholz has an innings cap, hence why he's not starting now, and won't be this year.

Maybe it's a regular season innings cap. So probably 6 more 2 IP relief appearnces from Buch down the stretch, and then playoff time!
   14. JB H Posted: September 08, 2007 at 12:36 PM (#2516384)
Not starting Buchholz in the playoffs because of an arbitrary innings cap is really bad. I'm pretty scared the Red Sox might do that though.

When a team that expects to win 92 games — roughly where the Red Sox usually find themselves — adds a 5-win player to its roster in the winter, it increases the chances of making the playoffs by about 16%. But, it can only expect to win the World Series roughly one out of every eight times that this happens, meaning that their chances of winning the championship have increased by perhaps 2% — only half as much as displacing Wakefield for Buchholz would help the Red Sox now.


http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=515
   15. Darren Posted: September 08, 2007 at 01:01 PM (#2516397)
Not starting Buchholz in the playoffs because of an arbitrary innings cap is really bad. I'm pretty scared the Red Sox might do that though.


Who says it's arbitrary? And I'm not sure I buy the argument for Buc over Wake. Silver readily admits his calculations are not precise:

"The QERAs for Lester and Buchholz are primarily based on a very quick-and-dirty sort of minor league translation;"

That sounds like it introduces a lot of variability into this. And assuming that Wakefield's healthy, he's a lot more reliably decent than Buc--the young Buc is a has way more variability in any projection.
   16. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 08, 2007 at 01:29 PM (#2516412)
has way more variability in any projection.

Wakefield throw the knuckleball. It's whole existence is BASED on variability.

I think Wake should start in the playoffs, but leaving Buch out of the playoff roster is an absolute joke. What is Kyle Snyder going to offer than Buch can't?
   17. JB H Posted: September 08, 2007 at 01:32 PM (#2516415)
His conclusion is basically that not starting Buchholz costs the team about as many world series titles as turning down ARod's 2008 season free of charge. When the conclusion is that drastic I don't think any amount of Nate not having all the facts or being imprecise is going to change things.
   18. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 08, 2007 at 01:44 PM (#2516419)
Wouldn't getting Buch some big-time playoff innings help his future development?
   19. plink Posted: September 08, 2007 at 02:56 PM (#2516452)
There's no way they're not putting Lopez and Tavarez on the roster. Pitchers I'd most like to leave off roster for them: Gagne, Buchholz, Lester, in that order.

Also think there is (currently) a reasonable chance that Ellsbury gets left off. And that would be dumb.
   20. karlmagnus Posted: September 08, 2007 at 03:25 PM (#2516466)
I'd start Wakefield (if his knuckler's behaving between now and then) before Dice-K, who seems to be pretty tired. I'd certainly have Buchholz available in the pen though, and Ellsbury on the roster, if only as Manny-insurance
   21. Darren Posted: September 08, 2007 at 03:39 PM (#2516474)
Also think there is (currently) a reasonable chance that Ellsbury gets left off. And that would be dumb.


I cannot imagine it happening. Especially with the mythology surrounding Dave Roberts.
   22. chris p Posted: September 08, 2007 at 03:50 PM (#2516480)
If the Yankees win the Wild Card, the Sox only face LAA if they (the Angels) have a worse record than Cleveland, right? Of course, it's so tight everywhere (with the Tigers only being 3 behind the Yankees and the Indians only 4 behind the Red Sox for the best record, with LAA 2) it's probably too early to discuss seeding.

not at all. they face laa after the red sox beat the indians and the angels beat the yankees.
   23. chris p Posted: September 08, 2007 at 04:00 PM (#2516484)
i think ellsbury is a lock--he's the dave roberts defensive replacement/pinch runner. i'd prefer coco crisp in that role, but whatever. buchholz is a pretty solid bet to end up the pen for hte playoffs and lester probably only makes the roster if one of the current starters (wakefield's back ok?) can't go. so ....

c- varitek, mirabelli/cash
1b- youk, hinske, ortiz
2b- pedroia
ss- lugo
if- cora
3b- lowell
of- manny, crisp, drew, kielty, ellsbury
sp- beckett, matsuzaka, schilling, wakefield/lester
rp- papelbon, okajima, mdc, timlin, buchholz, gagne (if healthy), lopez/tavarez

another option for anaheim would be to leave off kielty b/c anaheim doesen't have any left handed relievers ... then you could carry both lopez and tavarez.
   24. Lassus Posted: September 08, 2007 at 04:18 PM (#2516494)
Pitchers I'd most like to leave off roster for them: Gagne, Buchholz, Lester, in that order.


I'm not even a Red Sox fan, and this is about the most bewildering thing I've read. The kid threw a no-hitter, and now has 2 wins (one in relief) but you think he's better off not on the rostter? I don't get it.

Wait, is Hinske really more valuable than another arm?
   25. Joel W Posted: September 08, 2007 at 04:32 PM (#2516503)
Quick question, as I didn't get to see the game, was Buchholz throwing harder in the relief role? Significantly so?
   26. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: September 08, 2007 at 04:54 PM (#2516517)
We saw in 2004 that Wakefield can become even more valuable in the playoffs due to his ability to become kind of a swing man in the pinch. With Wakefield and either Lester, Buccholz, or Tavarez, you could have the kind of long man who might be able to keep you in the game, or at least eat innings if the starter craps out early.
   27. chris p Posted: September 08, 2007 at 05:06 PM (#2516525)
was Buchholz throwing harder in the relief role?

no.

he also wasn't throwing his curveball ... but he did show his slider, which isn't a bad pitch.
   28. plink Posted: September 08, 2007 at 05:18 PM (#2516536)
I'm not even a Red Sox fan, and this is about the most bewildering thing I've read. The kid threw a no-hitter, and now has 2 wins (one in relief) but you think he's better off not on the rostter? I don't get it.


My view could change between now and October. But note that I wasn't saying I *wanted* Lopez and Tavarez on the roster, just that I thought they would be. So it's really a choice between Lester and Buchholz; workload, lefty-ness, and more time in the majors led me to prefer Lester right now for this particular role in the bullpen.

I'd certainly take Buchholz over Tavarez and Lopez.
   29. Darren Posted: September 08, 2007 at 05:40 PM (#2516562)
His conclusion is basically that not starting Buchholz costs the team about as many world series titles as turning down ARod's 2008 season free of charge. When the conclusion is that drastic I don't think any amount of Nate not having all the facts or being imprecise is going to change things.


But it's only a 4 percent difference. No matter how valuable it is, it's only 4 percent, which is easily skewed by a) trying to project a young pitcher like Buc, b) trying to predict how Buc will do after pitching past the most innings he's ever pitched, c) trying to project Wakefield using QERA (not sure what that is), d) the quick and dirty nature of the calculations.

There's also the possibility that Buc's health has a value greater than $25 mil.
   30. Lassus Posted: September 08, 2007 at 05:55 PM (#2516590)
I haven't watched much of the Sox this year, but why have Hinske? A lefty/righty option? I've never thought that was worth more than a good arm. I'll admit my bias.
   31. Dave Cyprian Posted: September 08, 2007 at 06:05 PM (#2516601)
Free Ellsbury -- He IS the spark we need: fearless, hungry, hot hand -- ride it out
   32. Chip Posted: September 08, 2007 at 06:21 PM (#2516632)
I haven't watched much of the Sox this year, but why have Hinske? A lefty/righty option? I've never thought that was worth more than a good arm. I'll admit my bias.


Lefty bat with some pop who isn't limited to backing up one position, as so many of those sorts are? That's useful.
   33. Lassus Posted: September 08, 2007 at 06:36 PM (#2516669)
.770 OPS in 143 AB is not all that much pop. It's more subjective, I just think an extra arm is worth more than an extra bat in the playoffs. I'm not sure how many would agree.
   34. Darren Posted: September 08, 2007 at 06:46 PM (#2516689)
A .770 OPS off the bench is pretty nice, but yeah, in the postseason, you're not likely to be giving anyone a day off, and there's no lousy guy to PH for.
   35. tfbg9 Posted: September 08, 2007 at 07:06 PM (#2516726)
Lefty bat with some pop who isn't limited to backing up one position, as so many of those sorts are? That's useful.



A minor quibble on this assertion: if Hinske's offensive abilities have eroded slightly to the point where his 2007 output reflects his real current ability to help the ballclub score runs, I'm not sure how truely useful he is anymore. Small sample size and all, but Hinske's bat seems to be producing bit less damage this season... more K's with a LD% that's way down, but on the other hand he's got ISO and HR/FB%'s that are in line with his established norms, and he's BB'ing a lot more. He's 30, which further coulds the crystal ball. Hinske's looked really overmatched in a lot of AB's this year, usually when Wok tunes in apparently, but that could be a reflection of less playing time for him in general than he's used to.

I like him a lot more as the OF/1B/3B(!?) semi-stiff 110ish OPS+ guy who hits RHP pretty well rather than this year's 100ish OPS+ roll-out.
   36. Chip Posted: September 08, 2007 at 07:09 PM (#2516731)
A .770 OPS off the bench is pretty nice, but yeah, in the postseason, you're not likely to be giving anyone a day off, and there's no lousy guy to PH for.


The question is whether, because of Youkilis' ability to play third, you're willing to go into the postseason with no backup corner infielder, and rely on Cora to backup Lowell and Ortiz to backup Youkilis in case either one of the corner starters got hurt during the series.
   37. JB H Posted: September 08, 2007 at 08:43 PM (#2516808)
But it's only a 4 percent difference. No matter how valuable it is, it's only 4 percent

4% is a really massive difference. In March 08 the Sox will probably have like a 8-9% chance at winning the world series


There's also the possibility that Buc's health has a value greater than $25 mil.

Its not like if he pitches 174 innings instead of 165 that Brian Cashman's Clay Buchholz labrum voodoo doll suddenly starts working
   38. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 09, 2007 at 02:13 AM (#2517069)

Lefty bat with some pop who isn't limited to backing up one position, as so many of those sorts are? That's useful.


Brandon Moss backs up LF and RF, and he was working on 1B in AAA. And he doesn't suck.


another option for anaheim would be to leave off kielty b/c anaheim doesen't have any left handed relievers ... then you could carry both lopez and tavarez.


They'll start Joe Saunders, and Drew/Hinske vs. Saunders is basically civilian freighter vs. Borg Cube. Resistance is futile.
   39. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 09, 2007 at 02:23 AM (#2517076)
My playoff roster btw:

C: Tek/Cash, Doug back on the DL
1B: Youk
2B: Pedroia
SS: Lugo
IF: Cora
3B: Lowell
Note; Erik Hinske can't play 3B. I doubt he has over 10 IP at 3B all year.
OF: Manny, Coco, Nicole, Kielty, Jacoby
Extra Bat: Moss

Starters: Beckett/Matsuzaka/Curt/Timmy
Relievers: Papelbon/Okajima/Manny D/Buccholz/Lester/Gagne/Timlin/Tavarez

I use Tavarez over Lopez because then Francona won't F!@# us by using Lopez to walk Giambi
   40. Dan Posted: September 09, 2007 at 02:30 AM (#2517080)
#### this team if they don't have Buccholz and Ellsbury on the playoff roster. And honestly if Matsuzaka keeps sputtering down the stretch, they should give serious thought to using him from the pen and giving Buccholz the starting spot.
   41. Answer Guy Posted: September 09, 2007 at 02:35 AM (#2517083)
#### this team if they don't have Buccholz and Ellsbury on the playoff roster. And honestly if Matsuzaka keeps sputtering down the stretch, they should give serious thought to using him from the pen and giving Buccholz the starting spot.

I'm not the only one then.

Buc should be in the rotation now. Make it a 6 man rotation if you have to.
   42. Dr. Vaux Posted: September 09, 2007 at 02:42 AM (#2517086)
They should have made it a 6-man rotation weeks ago, to keep Matsuzaka from running out of gas. We can only hope that this doesn't become an annual thing, but that he adapts.
   43. Dan Posted: September 09, 2007 at 02:43 AM (#2517087)
I'm sorry, but I really can't see any other team taking a guy who throws a ####### no-hitter in his 2nd start out of the ####### rotation for the inconsistent stylings of Lester, Wakefield, and Schilling, and Matsuzaka. None of those guys suck by any means, but it seems like all 4 of them are either great or complete #### in any given start, and it's a roll of the dice what they'll have that day. Except Matsuzaka, who gets staked to leads and then can't throw a ####### strike to save his life in some random inning every start.
   44. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 09, 2007 at 02:47 AM (#2517089)
I think the "Daisuke is exhausted" hypothesis has plenty of credence. The season in Japan is usually about to end right about now, and remember in Japan he pitched every 6 days, and not 5. He did pitch in plenty of International ball in November though (2003 in the Asian Cup to determine Olympic Candidacy, 2004/2005 in the MLB/NPB exhibition matches, and he threw in the WBC in March 2006).

He's drained mentally too. He need to take Josh Beckett lessons and destroy a watercooler.

I will say this: Daisuke has not been better because his pitch selection has been limited. He's not throwing the forkball nor the changeup with consistency, either the new mound or the new ball is giving him problems with either pitch (or Varitek won't call it, which sounds unlikely). The cutter was never that great to start with, and his 2 seamer is something he's just learning. So he's basically a fastball/slider guy. He was getting by with the fastball and slier, but once his command on the fastball abandons him, he's toast. Edit: The changeup wasn't Pedro good, but in Japan it was definitely a plus pitch, and he could get a swinging strike from left handers with that pitch. The forkball was relatively decent too, he could bury it in the dirt for an outpitch.
   45. Dan Posted: September 09, 2007 at 02:52 AM (#2517092)
Like I said, I'd just slot Buchholz into the rotation in Daisuke's spot for the rest of the year, and the playoffs. Matsuzaka could probably be solid in the pen at the moment with his Fastball/Slider combo, and in the offseason and into Spring Training he can work on getting his other pitches working again to come out strong to start next year.
   46. Chip Posted: September 09, 2007 at 03:13 AM (#2517099)
o he's basically a fastball/slider guy. He was getting by with the fastball and slier, but once his command on the fastball abandons him, he's toast.


I think fatigue is definitely a factor for Dice-K, but just as much is his and Varitek's inability to ever get in sync this year on what he should be throwing, and when. They've yo-yo'd from one extreme, where he seemingly never challenged anyone, to the other extreme, where he's challenging too much and making bad location mistakes when he does (you couldn't have a worse miss on a fastball location than he had on the grand slam pitch to Moore tonight).

In the postgame, Eckersley noted this abandonment of everything but the fastball and the cutter/slider lately, and more or less called out Varitek in the process, noting that Dice-K rarely shakes off, so whatever he's throwing is what Varitek wants. Whereas early in the year, Varitek was like a kid with a new toy, seeming to call for every one of the pitches in every single AB, and leading people to complain that Matsuzaka wasn't throwing the fastball enough. The happy medium in the middle of the season, where they were mixing pitches well and he was lights out, didn't last.
   47. Dr. Vaux Posted: September 09, 2007 at 03:29 AM (#2517105)
This wouldn't be the only time that an over-rated player is terrible at precisely the thing that the media thinks he's great at.
   48. Chip Posted: September 09, 2007 at 03:35 AM (#2517107)
This wouldn't be the only time that an over-rated player is terrible at precisely the thing that the media thinks he's great at.


Just like last year, when Beckett sucked because he wouldn't throw anything but fastballs. All we heard was that he was too stubborn. Well where the #### was the great leader and pitch caller Varitek to put him in his place and make him mix his pitches better? This year, Beckett's transition to doing just that appears to have had absolutely nothing to do with Varitek, based on the public comments. It's all about Beckett growing up.
   49. ian Posted: September 09, 2007 at 05:44 AM (#2517142)
When a team that expects to win 92 games — roughly where the Red Sox usually find themselves — adds a 5-win player to its roster in the winter, it increases the chances of making the playoffs by about 16%. But, it can only expect to win the World Series roughly one out of every eight times that this happens, meaning that their chances of winning the championship have increased by perhaps 2% — only half as much as displacing Wakefield for Buchholz would help the Red Sox now.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=515

What methodology is used here, and most importantly, how is a sample size issue avoided? Correlation = causation?
   50. Darren Posted: September 09, 2007 at 05:25 PM (#2517349)
You guys are misreading my "it's just 4 percent..." point. It's not that I'm saying it's inconsequential. It's that I'm saying that such a difference could easily be skewed one way or another.

On DiceK, I don't see the case for him wearing down. He's just now reaching his innings totals from Japan. What I see is a guy who has pretty bad command. In fact, he's had pretty bad command for much of the season. It's something mechanical or something to do with his grip on the ball. He's a good, young pitcher and he'll likely figure it out. How Boston does in the postseason largely depends on how quickly he figures it out.
   51. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 13, 2007 at 05:59 AM (#2522751)
Somebody please heed my call to tire-iron Eric Hinske so he doesn't come near the playoff roster.

Don't do it for me, do it for the children.
   52. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 14, 2007 at 02:42 AM (#2523749)
Where's the logic with Ellsbury missing the roster? There's no reason to carry 12 pitchers in a Division Series. There are about four days off per game in the playoffs this year.

Beckett/Matsuzaka/Schilling/Wakefield
Papelbon/Okajima/Timlin/Delcarmen/Lopez/Lester/Buccholz

If Gagne is healthy, someone from the last five goes, but either way, 12 pitchers in a division series is crazy talk. Once you've got 14 position player slots, you're good to go.

C Mirabelli
IF Hinske, Cora
OF Ellsbury, Kielty

No way does Hinske miss the roster (unless it's for Moss, but he hasn't impressed, and his MLE is worse than Hinske's 2007). The Red Sox aren't going to start Big Papi in the field because Youkilis sprained his wrist or something.

-On Bukholts, I agree with Darren in principle that we just don't know. This is a decision that has to be personalized, and this cap is apparently what they think is best for Buc's arm. But, well, I can't help but be skeptical. There's a huge advatnage to be had here, in slotting Buc in for the playoffs, and the Red Sox are going to disregard it because those 10-20 innings increase the injury risk that much? I can't see the data or the reports, so I can't argue with them, but I have a lot of trouble accepting the logic.
   53. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 14, 2007 at 03:32 AM (#2523790)
No way does Hinske miss the roster (unless it's for Moss, but he hasn't impressed, and his MLE is worse than Hinske's 2007).

There is no way Brandon Moss could stink up the joint more than Eric Hinske. At the very least Moss is the better defender and baserunner
   54. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 14, 2007 at 06:05 PM (#2524278)
Lester, Buchholz, and Ellsbury come in courtesy the F-Rod loophole. This would necessitate Mirabelli being left off the playoff roster so they could use all 3 DL loopholes (Clement, Donnelly & Mirabelli).
I just wanted to highlight this point by TE right at the beginning of the thread. As I read the rules, the Red Sox can only fit Ellsbury on the postseason roster if they leave Mirabelli on the DL. If Mirabelli is healthy, I can't imagine they'd leave him off the roster. It might be best for the team, arguably, but it won't happen. So there's a pretty reasonable chance (anyone know Dougie's prognosis?) that the team would be barred from placing Ellsbury on the postseason roster.

On the other hand, the Epstein/Lucchino Red Sox have always had a, well, creative relationship with the rules of organized baseball. I tend to think that if they found themselves without a traditional method of placing Ellsbury on the playoff roster, they'd find a non-traditional method.
   55. Textbook Editor Posted: September 14, 2007 at 08:50 PM (#2524456)
MC of A,

Yeah, my point at the start was kind of lost along the way--if you carry Mirabelli, there's only 2 F-Rod loophole slots, and you basically have 3-4 players competing for them: Lester, Buchholz, Ellsbury (and maybe Moss).

The rule now is that you do NOT have to swap-in position-for-position when it comes to the F-Rod loophole. (You do once the playoffs start, apparently, but not before.)

I'd argue that for the ALDS, there is a strong possibility they'd hold Buchholz back and go with Lester/Ellsbury, then see where they were should they get to the ALCS and then decide what they wanted to do--drop Lester, perhaps, and use Buchholz instead and stick with Ellsbury. It could be matchups play as much of a part in the decision as health.
   56. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: September 14, 2007 at 08:58 PM (#2524464)
Yeah, my point at the start was kind of lost along the way--if you carry Mirabelli, there's only 2 F-Rod loophole slots, and you basically have 3-4 players competing for them: Lester, Buchholz, Ellsbury (and maybe Moss)


I'm confused. Why would the F-rod loophole need to be employed to get Lester on the postseason roster?
   57. villageidiom Posted: September 15, 2007 at 02:48 AM (#2525372)
Lester was optioned to Portland on 8/23. He wasn't recalled until after 8/31, so he wasn't on the roster when playoff rosters were set.
   58. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: September 16, 2007 at 12:13 AM (#2526745)
Thanks VI.
   59. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 24, 2007 at 10:55 AM (#2539744)
Does anybody still want Javier Lopez on the playoff roster?
   60. villageidiom Posted: September 24, 2007 at 01:09 PM (#2539785)
I just wanted to highlight this point by TE right at the beginning of the thread. As I read the rules, the Red Sox can only fit Ellsbury on the postseason roster if they leave Mirabelli on the DL.

The rule now is that you do NOT have to swap-in position-for-position when it comes to the F-Rod loophole. (You do once the playoffs start, apparently, but not before.)

Yes, but if Mirabelli is no longer on the DL as of season's end, is the loophole still there? Could they conceivably leave him off the postseason roster because he was unavailable on 8/31, despite being available now?

I know they won't leave him off the roster, and I don't want him left off. I'm just looking for clarification on the rule (or rather the loophole within the rule).
   61. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 26, 2007 at 12:21 PM (#2543174)
Yes, but if Mirabelli is no longer on the DL as of season's end, is the loophole still there? Could they conceivably leave him off the postseason roster because he was unavailable on 8/31, despite being available now?
No. They could DL him again and leave him off the roster, but they won't.

The Red Sox only have two players who are eligible for the postseason roster and on the DL. Clement and Donnelly. I would not be particularly surprised to hear that sometime in the next week, Kyle Snyder pulls an eyelid and has to be disabled. But, as it stands, only two of Ellsbury/Lester/Buchholz can make the playoff roster. My preferred playoff roster has Buchholz in the starting rotation, and Wakefield in the bullpen. I guess Lester could be in the bullpen. I expect the Red Sox will start Wakefield, and Buchholz and Lester are pretty redundant in the bullpen. Will the Sox be forced to choose one?

Papelbon, Okajima, Delcarmen, Timlin, Lopez, Gagne, Buchholz/Lester

I guess you could get creative and drop Lopez and try out Lester as a loogy / long man, but that would be quite a shift for Lester, and I'd be surprised if they tried it without testing him in the regular season. You could also leave Gagne off the roster for Buchholz and use the kid as a mid-lev reliever instead of a long man. If the Sox play the Angels, they should leave Lopez off the roster, which would free spots for both Buchholz and Lester (assuming roster shenanigans to get it done).
   62. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 26, 2007 at 12:49 PM (#2543201)
Also, at what point does Jacoby Ellsbury earn himself the starting job in centerfield for the playoffs?
   63. Dizzypaco Posted: September 26, 2007 at 01:03 PM (#2543214)
Also, at what point does Jacoby Ellsbury earn himself the starting job in centerfield for the playoffs?

I think we may have passed that point. I wouldn't be surprised to see Ellsbury get the majority of the playing time in Center this coming week, and start in Center for the playoffs. I'm certainly rooting for it to happen. I went to the game last night, and they first announced Crisp as the starter in center before the game, but once the game started, we saw Ellsbury go out to centerfield. Anyone know the story? Was it a last minute change? Did Francona mention it?

If the Sox only get two spots for Ellsbury/Lester/Bucholz, I'm guessing its Ellsbury and Lester, and Lester is the fourth starter in the playoffs. Or maybe that's just me hoping it will come true.
   64. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 26, 2007 at 01:05 PM (#2543215)
Anyone know the story? Was it a last minute change? Did Francona mention it?
Coco's sick, according to NESN.
   65. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 26, 2007 at 01:09 PM (#2543216)
Papelbon, Okajima, Delcarmen, Timlin, Lopez, Gagne, Buchholz/Lester

I guess you could get creative and drop Lopez and try out Lester as a loogy / long man, but that would be quite a shift for Lester


I would, maybe I'm just a fanboy, but is there any way possible that Lester will be worse than Javier Lopez?
   66. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: September 26, 2007 at 05:55 PM (#2543627)
I would, maybe I'm just a fanboy, but is there any way possible that Lester will be worse than Javier Lopez?


FWIW, Lester has actually faired worse against lefties (OPS 919) than righties (744). Lopez has more typical splits (694 v LH and 805 v RH). So there's that.

I want Buccholz in there so bad. I understand protecting him and all, but he seems like the 3th or 4th best pitcher on the team to me.
   67. tfbg9 Posted: September 27, 2007 at 03:21 PM (#2545355)
Ellsbury has yet to mentally blueprint the dimesions of Fenway's outfield wall into this head, and often looks bad when a ball he's after scrapes the outfield wall. Coco seems to have processed all this stuff. I like Coco in CF for the big games for this reason.

FWIW, tfbg9's ultra-wise postseason roster:

Cappy
Youks
Dusty
Mikey
Lugo
Manny
Coco
JD
Papi
Ellsbury
Hinske
Cora
Kielty
'Belli


Beckett 1
Dice 2
Schill 3
Clay 4 (if need be)
Papsie(new friendly nickname)
Okajima
MDC
Lopez
Wake (Longman-take that km!)
Timeline (new nickname for the ageless, 6th inning periphial defying wonder)
Gagne (gulp!)
   68. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 27, 2007 at 03:29 PM (#2545368)
That's my roster, too, with one minor difference. The most likely opponent for the Red Sox in the first round is Anaheim. The only lefty on that roster who wouldn't be pulled for a pinch-hitter is Garret Anderson. While a second lefty is necessary against either Cleveland or the Yankees, there isn't much purpose to Lopez against the Angels. Any of Tavarez, Snyder, or Lester (if the roster works) would probably be better choices. but that's a very, very marginal difference.
   69. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 27, 2007 at 03:31 PM (#2545370)
And, hey, didn't Gagne look pretty good getting out of the inning last night? It looks to me like he has lost the feel for the change - and even when he has the feel, the movement and deception aren't the same - but if he can use the curve as his put-away pitch and place a majority of his fastballs in the zone, he can be a useful reliever.
   70. Schilling's Sprained Ankiel Posted: September 27, 2007 at 03:35 PM (#2545381)
Gagme is useless. Never a clean inning. Bryan Corey is better than him for godsakes.
   71. Schilling's Sprained Ankiel Posted: September 27, 2007 at 03:37 PM (#2545382)
Gagne did not look that good to me yesterday. Fastball had some life, but I didn't see much movement, and his control wasn't wonderful.
   72. karlmagnus Posted: September 27, 2007 at 03:38 PM (#2545386)
tfbg9, surely if Wake is the long man you don't need Mirabelli -- just put a board up behind the umpire and train the SS to go fetch the balls....
   73. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 27, 2007 at 03:40 PM (#2545392)
The two swinging Ks on good curveballs didn't get you excited? I thought that was the most positive Gagne outing in a while. (The second single was a bloop off the end of the bat, too.)
   74. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 27, 2007 at 03:41 PM (#2545395)
The only lefty on that roster who wouldn't be pulled for a pinch-hitter is Garret Anderson. While a second lefty is necessary against either Cleveland or the Yankees, there isn't much purpose to Lopez against the Angels.

Javier Lopez would end up walking Garret Anderson anyway. Like I said, somebody has to take Javier Lopez away from Terry Francona.

Has Jon Lester ever thrown as a reliever before? Maybe we shoudl stick him the pen for the playoffs, and make him the longinning mopup man, or the LOOGY. Becuase Javier Lopez can do neither.

P.S. Brandon Moss is looking pretty decent defensively in the corners.

Edit: If you're not going to start Wake, I'd take Cash. Cash seems to be a better defensive catcher than Doug.
   75. Schilling's Sprained Ankiel Posted: September 27, 2007 at 03:49 PM (#2545407)
I'd be much more excited if people would ever miss his fastball.
   76. tfbg9 Posted: September 27, 2007 at 03:56 PM (#2545420)
Anybody else notice the big, extendo index finger that Gagne shows on the curve? I wonder if that can be picked up by some of the batters? I've never seen a curve gripped in that way...
   77. tfbg9 Posted: September 27, 2007 at 04:45 PM (#2545489)
Look at the LAAoA's splits for the *'s and the #'s. Loogies would be useful, IMO.
   78. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 28, 2007 at 10:18 AM (#2547656)
Look at the LAAoA's splits for the *'s and the #'s. Loogies would be useful, IMO.

Javier Lopez is not a LOOGY. He doens't get lefies out.
   79. tfbg9 Posted: September 28, 2007 at 03:01 PM (#2547799)
According to BB-ref., here's his lifetime loogy split, at 29 years old: .257 .336 .360-so it depends on hopw much you put on recent samples I guess.
   80. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 30, 2007 at 12:51 PM (#2550921)
So, now we know that Buchholz is shut down for the season and they picked the longer series. Does this mean they go with the three-man rotation? I think they have to, Wakefield has not been effective - my guess is he's fatigued, he's an old man and he worked hard this year - and the difference between one of his starts and one by Schilling/Daisuke is pretty huge.

Daisuke has been a lot better on extra rest, though. Schilling's splits are pretty even the last two years, so I think the best rotation for the Red Sox would be Beckett-Schilling-Daisuke-Beckett-Schilling. Have there been reports of what the team plans?

If they go to a 3-man rotation, that would theoretically open up a spot for another position player. The Angels' only lefty in the pen is Darren Oliver, so it wouldn't be completely crazy to carry another LH bat - that would mean using the second K-Rod loophole on Brandon Moss. My guess, though, is that the added value from such a switch is tiny - in 5 games over 8 days, the 25th man will usually sit on the bench the entire time.

Guys we all assume make the roster:

Varitek, Mirabelli, Youkilis, Hinske, Pedroia, Lugo, Cora, Lowell, Manny, Crisp, Drew, Ellsbury, Kielty, Papi
Beckett, Schilling, Matsuzaka, Wakefield, Papelbon, Okajima, Delcarmen, Timlin, Gagne

With the long series, I think Javier Lopez definitely makes the roster - even if he only pitches to Anderson once, he'll probably add more value than another 10th pitcher, given the extra days of rest.

That leaves one spot among Moss, Lester, Corey, and Tavarez. My guess, from the usage patterns of the last few days, is that they want to give the spot to Corey. (If they pull Tavarez after 50ish pitches today, then he's the guy.) But I wouldn't really be surprised by any of the above, and as I said above, in the end it probably doesn't really matter. I still like the game of it, though, and sometimes it does matter.
   81. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 30, 2007 at 01:09 PM (#2550931)
That leaves one spot among Moss, Lester, Corey, and Tavarez.

I pick Lester. If there is a blowout, somebody needs to come in and eat up innings. Jon Lester is that guy. He can also be the emergency LOOGY should Javier Lopez fail (which I expect him to do)
   82. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 30, 2007 at 01:12 PM (#2550933)
Wakefield is the long reliever in the above roster.

Lester, in the minors, has struggled badly coming out of the pen - even when he was "starting from the pen", coming into a game during a pre-arranged inning - and he hasn't pitched out the bullpen all year. I don't think he'd be a good choice.

If the Red Sox go to a four-man staff, I think Tavarez is the most likely long man.

EDIT: just a thought, but I wonder if Jon Lester might be on tap as a fourth starter in the ALCS, if the Sox get through the first round. He's pitched well against CLE, and the Yankees are lefty-heavy - 845/782 splits.
   83. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: September 30, 2007 at 01:12 PM (#2550934)
Who do you bring in leading by one in the seventh inning, Matt?
   84. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 30, 2007 at 01:19 PM (#2550938)
I'd get three innings out of Okajima and Papelbon. I'd have no problem seeing Delcarmen in there, otherwise.

The usage patterns of the last week have pretty much confirmed Delcarmen as the #3 reliever.
   85. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: September 30, 2007 at 02:46 PM (#2550999)
Who do you bring in leading by one in the seventh inning, Matt?

Manny Delcarmen.
   86. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: September 30, 2007 at 08:11 PM (#2551949)
And Jon Lester, in a bid to make me look bad, not only comes out of the pen, but throws two perfect innings on 20 pitches. I'm a little surprised he got his only bullpen tryout on the last day of the season, but throwing that well, and being left-handed, has to give him a good shot at the postseason roster now.
   87. Nasty Nate Posted: October 01, 2007 at 12:36 AM (#2552393)
at what time is the game likely to be on wednesday? when will game times be announced?
   88. PJ Martinez Posted: October 01, 2007 at 12:46 PM (#2552646)
"Though the team isn't announcing its rotation for the postseason yet, it appears it will be Josh Beckett, Schilling, and Daisuke Matsuzaka, in that order. Last night, however, Ch. 4's Dan Roche reported the order would be Beckett, Matsuzaka, and Schilling. In any case, the Red Sox had to finish off the regular season with a game against the Twins in front of 36,364 fans in chilly Fenway Park."

Hmmm...
   89. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 01, 2007 at 07:51 PM (#2553366)
Francona confirms that it will be Daisuke in Game 2, and with the three-man rotation, he's scheduled for Game 5, per an AP report on Boston.com. Also confirms that Wakefield will be in the bullpen.

I don't think this is the right choice, given Daisuke's clearly diminished effectiveness on normal rest, but, well, hopefully I'm wrong.
   90. karlmagnus Posted: October 01, 2007 at 08:27 PM (#2553434)
MCA, I hope we don't have to find out....
   91. Textbook Editor Posted: October 01, 2007 at 08:37 PM (#2553447)
I'm guessing here that the Red Sox want Schilling lined for a potential Game 1 ALCS start, and that's why they're going with Matsusaka in Game 2. I'm also wondering if they wouldn't try something like saying they'd start Matsusaka but having Schilling come out to start Game 2.
   92. villageidiom Posted: October 01, 2007 at 11:07 PM (#2553649)
at what time is the game likely to be on wednesday? when will game times be announced?

All times EDT.

Wed 10/03 6:37p
Fri 10/05 8:37p
Sun 10/07 3:07p
Mon 10/08 9:37p
Wed 10/10 8:37p
   93. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: October 02, 2007 at 12:50 AM (#2553860)
Wow, that really is a long series.
   94. Darren Posted: October 02, 2007 at 12:50 AM (#2553863)
I'm also wondering if they wouldn't try something like saying they'd start Matsusaka but having Schilling come out to start Game 2.


They could do it like wrestling. "Who's coming out... I can't see who it is... Oh my God I think that's Schilling's music! And he's got a chair!"

Or maybe they could wear masks so we're not sure who it is until the game's over.
   95. PJ Martinez Posted: October 02, 2007 at 12:57 AM (#2553888)
"I'm guessing here that the Red Sox want Schilling lined for a potential Game 1 ALCS start, and that's why they're going with Matsusaka in Game 2."

Do you really think Theo/Francona are so hubristic as to base their division series rotation on the ALCS? I suppose, if they thought Schilling v. Matsuzaka for game 2 was a push, the way it lines up for the ALCS could be a tiebreaker. But I hope and assume it's not the first, second, or third factor.

The decision doesn't make sense to me. Maybe Schilling is hurting somehow. He'll be on a lot of rest for game three.
   96. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: October 02, 2007 at 05:17 AM (#2555691)
Or maybe they could wear masks so we're not sure who it is until the game's over.

Yeah, like we can't tell who's fat whiteass is pitching.
   97. ellsbury my heart at wounded knee Posted: October 02, 2007 at 07:18 PM (#2556484)
Cross posted from the preview thread:

Regulars:

Jason Varitek
Kevin Youkilis
Dustin Pedroia
Julio Lugo
Mike Lowell
J.D. Drew
Coco Crisp
Manny Ramirez
David Ortiz

Bench:

Eric Hinske
Alex Cora
Jacoby Ellsbury
Bobby Kielty
Doug Mirabelli
Kevin Cash

Pitchers:

Josh Beckett
Daisuke Matsuzaka
Curt Schilling
Jon Lester
Jonathan Papelbon
Eric Gagne
Hideki Okajima
Mike Timlin
Manny Delcarmen
Javier Lopez


Why the #### are Kevin Cash AND Doug Mirabelli necessary? ESPECIALLY WHEN TIM WAKEFIELD IS NOT ON THE ROSTER?
   98. The Essex Snead Posted: October 02, 2007 at 07:31 PM (#2556500)
BOSTON - Knuckleballer Tim Wakefield has been left off Boston's playoff roster for its first-round series against the Los Angeles Angels because of his ailing back.

Manager Terry Francona said Tuesday that the goal was to get Wakefield healthy enough for later in the playoffs, should the Red Sox advance.
   99. Textbook Editor Posted: October 02, 2007 at 07:39 PM (#2556521)
All I have on the 3 catcher front is that maybe the thought process is this:

Should Manny get hurt or Ortiz get hurt (or Youkilis, or Drew, etc. etc. etc.) One of the options would be to DH Varitek and let Cash or Mirabelli catch. Because if you DH Varitek, should you lose a C or PH for the C you'd need a 3rd catcher to come in or you'd lose the DH.

You can't DH Hinske because he's Youkilis insurance. You could DH Ellsbury, but I suspect they wouldn't want to because they may want him as a late defensive sub or as a PR option late.

So I think there is a train of thinking that gets you to where you'd need a 3rd C, but it also means that perhaps they're worried about Ortiz (and Manny) far more than they've been letting on. It could also mean they might start Ortiz at 1st should Youkilis not be able to go, DH Manny and start Ellsbury.

But I don't know. I mean I get that maybe you'd want Moss in there over Cash or Mirabelli, but if that is the difference in the series the Red Sox are in trouble.
   100. The Essex Snead Posted: October 02, 2007 at 07:40 PM (#2556525)
Tho I'm still not sure why that 3rd catcher is necessary. It's not like Mirabelli or Cash hit lefties any better than Varitek, I didn't think the Sox pitchers were being caddied, I'm pretty sure the pitcher won't have to hit in this series, and they sure as hell better not come up in a situation as a pinch hitter for Drew or anyone. And it's defintely not necessary to have two guys to spell your #1 catcher in blowouts.
Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 > 

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Harry Balsagne, anti-Centaur hate crime division
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.7988 seconds
41 querie(s) executed