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. Enrico Pallazzo Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:49 AM (#2972889)
A) Should have stuck with Lester for the 8th
B) Should have gone straight to Papelbon

But who cares? ALCS! Woooooo!
   2. Darren Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:53 AM (#2972900)
Couldn't go straight to Pap--he was only available for one. You could certainly argue Lester for 1 more. I also didn't love Masterson in the 9th.
   3. JB H Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:53 AM (#2972902)
holy crap baseball is great

i thought it was pretty obvious that papelbon wasn't really available
   4. Fourth True Outcome Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:53 AM (#2972904)
Thank God for Mike Scioscia and his ill-advised squeeze play, or this one would still be going on. That was about everything you could ask for in a playoff game, but especially the win. Next stop Rays!
   5. Dan Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:54 AM (#2972909)
To face Tampa Bay
   6. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:55 AM (#2972911)
You guys see the TBS postgame?

Sager asked Papelbon if he was ready to go tonight, and Papelbon replied, "I always got it, baby!" Then he sprayed Sager with champagne and jumped around whooping like a crazy person.

Really.
   7. philly Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:55 AM (#2972912)
Tampa? Is this some kind of spring training exhibition style tuneup for the WS?
   8. Nasty Nate Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:55 AM (#2972913)
~-- David Ortiz is saving all his heroics for the 2nd and 3rd playoff rounds --~
   9. Darren Posted: October 07, 2008 at 04:03 AM (#2972927)
It's late, I'm tired, and that team is always adding and subtracting parts of their name. I can't be bothered to remember which ones are currently in and out.
   10. Nasty Nate Posted: October 07, 2008 at 04:05 AM (#2972931)
i hate to harp on the announcers again, but in the dozen times they told us Lowell was out and off the roster, couldnt they have mentioned who replaced him? did I miss it?
   11. Dan Posted: October 07, 2008 at 04:06 AM (#2972933)
John Farrell just walked up and sprayed the hell out of Lester in the face with champagne while Heidi Watney was interviewing him. That was awesome.
   12. Enrico Pallazzo Posted: October 07, 2008 at 04:08 AM (#2972940)
who replaced him?

Gil Velazquez. Yeah. Gil Velazquez. He got a brief pre-game close-up and looked delighted.
   13. tfbg9 Posted: October 07, 2008 at 04:17 AM (#2972943)
I just want to give one more "f*ck you " to Okajima.

Crazy game. Woooooo!!!
   14. tfbg9 Posted: October 07, 2008 at 04:18 AM (#2972945)
I'd go with Dice, then Lester, then Beckett. To give Josh as much time
as possible to heal.
   15. Enrico Pallazzo Posted: October 07, 2008 at 04:18 AM (#2972946)
So Dice-K (Friday), Lester (Sat.), Beckett??? (Mon.), Wakefield (Tues.) for the ALCS?

5 (Thu.), 6 (Sat.), 7 (Sun.) are the other games, for those who didn't know.
   16. Dan Posted: October 07, 2008 at 04:39 AM (#2972967)
Also, win or lose, this is the Red Sox' 4th appearance in the ALCS in 6 years. That's just flat out impressive.
   17. Xander Posted: October 07, 2008 at 04:40 AM (#2972968)
Could there be anything to the thought that Beckett was lacking in command last night because of rust he had to work off, and making him wait longer to get rest would actually be detrimental to him?

Passive voice, #####.
   18. Dan Posted: October 07, 2008 at 04:43 AM (#2972973)
I think it's more likely that his command and velocity were off because his oblique still wasn't 100%. He was sharp as hell right off the bat when he came back from the few weeks he missed after his elbow went wonky, so our best evidence would seem to indicate missing a little time shouldn't #### him up.
   19. Textbook Editor Posted: October 07, 2008 at 05:02 AM (#2972980)
Cross-posted with the Game Chatter thread...

I think if you're going to start Wakefield over Byrd (and I think you should), I think you have to start him in a dome game. Thus, I would defy conventional wisdom and do the following:

Game 1 - Wakefield (Fri)
Game 2 - Lester (Sat) (normal rest)
Game 3 - Beckett (Mon) (extra rest)
Game 4 - Matsusaka (Tues) (extra extra rest)
Game 5 - Lester (Thurs) (normal rest)
Game 6 - Beckett (Sat) (normal rest)
Game 7 - Matsusaka/All hands on deck (Sun) (Mastsusaka on normal rest)

I'll admit, it's damn unconventional, but Wakefield in game 1 makes the most sense to me given all the other variables, and you can do it and still get 2 starts from each of Lester/Beckett/Matsusaka, with none of them on short rest.
   20. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: October 07, 2008 at 05:10 AM (#2972981)
I just want to give one more "f*ck you " to Okajima.


Seconded

Cold - ball not traveling well - two run lead and he was batting righty - show some balls for Christ sakes
   21. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: October 07, 2008 at 06:13 AM (#2973002)
I like Textbook Editor's rotation option, with the natural caveat that I'm a Wake fan.
   22. RobertMachemer Posted: October 07, 2008 at 06:48 AM (#2973010)
I hate Textbook Editor's rotation option, with the natural caveat that I want the Red Sox to win the ALCS.

For his career, Wakefield has a 3.92 ERA in domes, a 4.18 ERA at home, a 4.06 ERA in cold-weather March/April, and a 4.20 ERA in cold-weather September/October. Sure, he has a career 2.86 ERA in Tampa Bay, but in 2008 he has a 5.87 ERA in Tampa Bay.

Suffice it to say, I see little reason to think that the advantage in pitching Wakefield (even if there is one, and I remain to be convinced that there is one) is significant enough to bump him ahead of the three clearly superior starters in the rotation. I mean, I like Mark Bellhorn, but I don't want the Sox to sign him and start him over Dustin Pedroia (though the ALDS version of Pedroia was hardly the MVP of the previous few months).

dERA   ERA   IP
Beckett    3.24  4.03  174.1
Lester     3.78  3.21  210.1
Matsuzaka  4.11  2.90  167.2
Wakefield  4.66  4.13  181.0 


Fortunately, I remain confident that Francona won't start Wakefield in Game 1.
   23. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: October 07, 2008 at 07:57 AM (#2973016)
Isn't Darren a textbook editor? Has anyone seen these two in the same room at the same time?
   24. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: October 07, 2008 at 08:14 AM (#2973017)
Mark Bellhorn. It would be sweet to have him on the roster rather than Gil Velazquez right now.

Then again...777 OPS in AA. Not the best. Swift drop for him...
   25. Textbook Editor Posted: October 07, 2008 at 01:35 PM (#2973075)
Huh, I didn't know Darren was a textbook editor. Darren--what subjects/level do you work on? I mainly do college chemistry/physics, but I've dabbled in television/theater production of late as well.

My proposed rotation in #19 was based on the following facts:

(1) They need a 4th starter for the series

(2) It seems they prefer to start Wakefield instead of Byrd because of the catching issue, saving Byrd as the long man. This could very well be important if Beckett blows up in his next start (which to me is at least a 25% possibility you need to have a plan B for).

(3) If you're going to start Wakefield against TB, my guess is they'd rather have him start in the dome, where there is less possible variability with winds, etc. for the knuckleball. That leaves only Games 1, 2, 6 & 7 for the start, and I'm guessing they would prefer him not to start a Game 6 or 7 if they could help it.

(4) Starting Wakefield (or Byrd, even, if you wanted to go that way--I prefer Wakefield but couldn't argue with Byrd) in Game 1 allows your other 3 starters to slot in for 2 starts each, while allowing extra rest early in the series for starters they'd prefer to get it (Beckett & Matsusaka).

(5) I don't think the Red Sox think a Game 1 loss is any more or less important than a Game 4 loss (unless you were down 0-3, of course), and so who starts Game 1 is less important in the bigger picture to them then how they slot things for Games 1-7 on the whole.

I'm not saying the Red Sox will do what I'm proposing--I think it's rather unlikely--but it isn't totally crazy, and if you happen to win Game 1 with Wakefield starting, it's a huge boost, because now you're set up the rest of the series. If you lose Game 1, well, it's only Game 1 and you're still set up the rest of the series with the best starters you have (with 2 of them getting extra rest in there). It's at least worth considering, is all I'm saying.
   26. Fly should without a doubt be number !!!!! Posted: October 07, 2008 at 01:51 PM (#2973089)
Mark Bellhorn. It would be sweet to have him on the roster rather than Gil Velazquez right now.

What's a Bellhorn?
   27. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: October 07, 2008 at 02:10 PM (#2973112)
Gil Velazquez
Apropos of nothing, because I doubt he'll matter, but this is what is listed under "Fielding" on Gil Velazquez' Wikipedia page:

Velazquez is an average fielder commiting few errors. He is a shortstop that always pays attention of what is happening so he can field the ball. He has average run speed, which also helps him field balls easily and is able to run bases well and steal bases well on occasions.

That's some damn fine scouting!
   28. Toby Posted: October 07, 2008 at 02:13 PM (#2973116)
I'm not Darren, and I'm not a textbook editor, but I did write a textbook. Does that count?
   29. TomH Posted: October 07, 2008 at 02:27 PM (#2973137)
what's the rule on DLing players in the playoffs? I thought if a guy got hurt during a series (like ALDS), you could not replace him until after the series ended, but the Sox brought in Vlsq---z for Lowell.
   30. chris p Posted: October 07, 2008 at 02:35 PM (#2973145)
What's a Bellhorn?

nice.
   31. jmurph Posted: October 07, 2008 at 02:44 PM (#2973155)
what's the rule on DLing players in the playoffs? I thought if a guy got hurt during a series (like ALDS), you could not replace him until after the series ended, but the Sox brought in Vlsq---z for Lowell.


You can replace him, but then the guy (Lowell, in this case) is automatically unavailable for the next series.
   32. JB H Posted: October 07, 2008 at 02:55 PM (#2973168)
I don't get the point of Velazquez. He's only going to play if someone gets hurt and it's not like he's a huge improvement on whatever goofy configuration they'd have if they were short a MI. Jeff Bailey or Chris Carter are sorta useful in every game
   33. Textbook Editor Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:10 PM (#2973189)
Toby: Sure! Welcome to the BTF textbook makers club! Population: 3 and growing!
   34. Dave Cyprian Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:18 PM (#2973199)
A) Francona said postgame that he also thought Lester should pitch the eighth. But he said he saw Lester's fist-pump after the seventh and decided it was over for the young ace. I guess that's good managing... I don't know. Sure didn't look that good but I guess it all worked out.

B) Reggie Willits played a fascinating role in this ALDS. Has a defensive replacement / pinch runner ever been involved in so many key moments? The really weird thing was it appeared that Scioscia was pushing all the right Willits-buttons but it just wasn't working out for the Halos... He got him in there as a defensive replacement in game 2, only to have Ortiz's blast bounce out of his glove. Then he pinch ran but couldn't outrun a catcher back to 3rd base last night, although that play was hardly Reggie's fault. Then he makes a great effort at Bay's slicer 5 minutes later, but comes up just short. Of course Lowrie singled to right two batters later, so that it was on Willits to make the miracle throw, which he could not do. Wow.

C) Manny Ramirez now has a super chance of earning a WS share... If Dodgers and Sox advance, will he be the first player, or at least the first starter, to have a financial stake in either team winning?
   35. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:22 PM (#2973208)
C) Manny Ramirez now has a super chance of earning a WS share... If Dodgers and Sox advance, will he be the first player, or at least first starter, to have a financial stake in either team winning?
Also, is there some kind of rule that a player can only earn a WS share on one team? There has to be, for obvious reasons.
   36. TomH Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:22 PM (#2973210)
C) is a VERY interestng question!
   37. SoSH U at work Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:25 PM (#2973217)
Also, is there some kind of rule that a player can only earn a WS share on one team? There has to be, for obvious reasons.


Isn't a share voted on by players after the series? Manny's not guaranteed one (and as TomH says, it would be an interesting vote), so I don't think there's any conflict involved.
   38. Toby Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:28 PM (#2973220)
Textbook Editor: Woo hoo! Check out my url some time.
   39. SoSH U at work Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:31 PM (#2973224)
As a simple trade magazine editor, I feel like such an outcast now.
   40. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:34 PM (#2973232)
Isn't a share voted on by players after the series? Manny's not guaranteed one (and as TomH says, it would be an interesting vote), so I don't think there's any conflict involved
I thought if a player was on a roster for a certain amount of time, he was due, by rule, a certain share. I recall this coming up with the Yankees and Carl Pavano who by virtue of his extended DL stints earned full playoff shares every year he was with the team.
   41. SoSH U at work Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:44 PM (#2973247)
I thought if a player was on a roster for a certain amount of time, he was due, by rule, a certain share. I recall this coming up with the Yankees and Carl Pavano who by virtue of his extended DL stints earned full playoff shares every year he was with the team.


Our favorite retired homophobic relief pitcher pretty much confirms your take .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
   42. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:51 PM (#2973260)
So Manny played in 61% of Red Sox games and 32% of Dodger games. Obviously this up to the players to vote, and I'd guess the Red Sox aren't feeling espcially generous towards Manny.

But I suppose in theory if the Sox gave him the 60% he "earned" and the Dodgers--feeling grateful for all that Manny did for the team--gave him a higher percentage than his games played, Manny could earn something like a 110% share.
   43. Gaelan Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:52 PM (#2973267)
Francona said postgame that he also thought Lester should pitch the eighth. But he said he saw Lester's fist-pump after the seventh and decided it was over for the young ace. I guess that's good managing... I don't know.


That is very interesting and the kind of thing we don't pay enough attention to.
   44. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: October 07, 2008 at 03:55 PM (#2973272)
Our favorite retired homophobic relief pitcher pretty much confirms your take here.


Sounds like the players have complete control over who gets what. Sure a player should probably *expect* to get something if he played for the team - but it doesn't sound like they are guaranteed anything.

I'm pretty sure Nomar got a full share in 2004. I would be really surprised if Manny doesn't get a full share from the Sox - they've always seemingly been generous with those types of things. (The new truck for the bullpen catcher comes to mind)
   45. RedSoxBaller Posted: October 07, 2008 at 04:00 PM (#2973288)
The Red Sox are starting Dice-K in game 1. I think that this series will go to 5 games, with the Red Sox advancing. Lets go Red Sox!!!!
   46. rr Posted: October 07, 2008 at 04:17 PM (#2973317)
Also, win or lose, this is the Red Sox' 4th appearance in the ALCS in 6 years. That's just flat out impressive.


Yes, it is. Congrats to Red Sox and fans. So, if we get the FOXgasm matchup of LAD/BOS, who will karlmangus be pulling for?
   47. Nasty Nate Posted: October 07, 2008 at 04:19 PM (#2973320)
he said a pitcher who comes into the dugout thinking he's done for the evening has a tendency to ratchet down the emotion and might not gain it back again if he's sent back out.


49. Grady Little Posted: October 07, 2008 at 12:24 PM (#2973402)
NOW you tell me!
   48. plim Posted: October 07, 2008 at 07:41 PM (#2973687)
i interned one summer at a text book publisher, can i be in the club?

49: post spoofing numbering fail
   49. karlmagnus Posted: October 07, 2008 at 08:12 PM (#2973716)
Robinred, Sox, but with Manny going .500/1.250/1.750 and the Series going 7 games, the 7th won by Wakefield!

Oh, and no Wakefield start, I'm rooting for the Dodgers!
   50. villageidiom Posted: October 07, 2008 at 09:28 PM (#2973801)
Sounds like the players have complete control over who gets what... I'm pretty sure Nomar got a full share in 2004.
Correct and correct. The 2004 Red Sox voted full shares for pretty much anyone they could think of. Partial shares are a more common occurrence.

I'm not Darren, and I'm not a textbook editor, but I did write a textbook. Does that count?
I've read an edited textbook. Well, part of it.
   51. tfbg9 Posted: October 08, 2008 at 03:00 AM (#2973993)
For his career, Wakefield has a 3.92 ERA in domes, a 4.18 ERA at home, a 4.06 ERA in cold-weather March/April, and a 4.20 ERA in cold-weather September/October. Sure, he has a career 2.86 ERA in Tampa Bay, but in 2008 he has a 5.87 ERA in Tampa Bay.



He also has a 6.36 ERA in the postseason. (sorry km)
   52. alskor Posted: October 08, 2008 at 06:53 AM (#2974092)
Also, win or lose, this is the Red Sox' 4th appearance in the ALCS in 6 years. That's just flat out impressive.


With '99, that also makes 5 out of 10...
   53. alskor Posted: October 08, 2008 at 06:54 AM (#2974094)
he expanded on that after the game. he said a pitcher who comes into the dugout thinking he's done for the evening has a tendency to ratchet down the emotion and might not gain it back again if he's sent back out. So Francona decided to not take a chance on that and took him out.


The way he described it also seemed to indicate that it was a pretty close call in his mind.
   54. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: October 08, 2008 at 07:02 AM (#2974096)
Wakefield would choke in these playoffs - surely he won't be starting - he was terrible in September - the Rays murdered him at Tropicana last time.
   55. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: October 08, 2008 at 10:29 AM (#2974120)
joke killed in post 52
   56. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: October 08, 2008 at 11:08 AM (#2974123)
This spraying of faces with champagne...it's very...uh, how should I say it? Very gay. Very very gay.
   57. Darren Posted: October 08, 2008 at 11:24 AM (#2974126)
Not a textbook editor.
   58. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: October 08, 2008 at 11:35 AM (#2974127)
I once spent a painfully long bus ride sitting next to the person who had written my freshman year chemistry textbook. (Really, I did.)
   59. Enrico Pallazzo Posted: October 08, 2008 at 04:16 PM (#2974376)
Wakefield is getting game 4...
   60. Nasty Nate Posted: October 08, 2008 at 04:56 PM (#2974432)
game 1 - Dizzy
game 2 - Beckett
game 3 - Lester
game 4 - Wake

interesting.

I wouldnt be surprised if, in the case of one of the first 2 games being an extra-inning marathon (as the Sox are known to be involved in during the LCS), Wakefield ends up being used in relief and then Byrd will go in game 4.
   61. Textbook Editor Posted: October 08, 2008 at 05:24 PM (#2974474)
I'm less than enthused with the rotation in #62. At least pitch Lester in Game 2 and 5 on normal rest. We could easily be down 0-2 going into Boston with Lester/Wakefield/Matsusaka planned for 3, 4 & 5, and if that's the case we may not see a Game 6 or 7, which means that in the most important series of the year, 3 of the first 5 games will have been started by Matsusaka & Wakefield. That's just crazy. Look, I know my plan in #19 was not going to be adopted, but if you aren't going to go that way, isn't this the more optimal version:

Game 1 - Matsusaka (Fri)
Game 2 - Lester (Sat) (normal rest)
Game 3 - Beckett (Mon) (extra rest)
Game 4 - Wakefield (Tues)
Game 5 - Lester (Thurs) (normal rest)
Game 6 - Matsusaka (Sat) (7 days rest)
Game 7 - Beckett/All hands on deck (Sun) (Beckett on 5 days' rest)

Matsusaka pitches both games away from Fenway (where he's better); Lester pitches 2 of the first 5 games on normal rest, we steal extra rest for Beckett for both starts, as well as for Matsusaka. I don't get this extra rest for Lester issue that's come up--unless he has an injury that has not been disclosed, he should be fine. Pitching him in 2 of the first 5 games is a decided advantage and we're pissing it away throwing him in Game 3 and a Game 7 we may not get to see. Worse, if Beckett blows up for good in Game 2, then you're totally screwed and start Paul Byrd in Game 6. At least if you find out he's toast in Game 3 you can punt such a move to a Game 7, when presumably it would be all hands on deck anyway.

I'm probably missing something here; I just don't see the rotation setup in #62 as optimal.

[Edit: I had Lester pitching in Games 3 & 6 in the scheme in #62, when it is likely it would be Games 3 & 7; edited accordingly.]
   62. J. Sosa Posted: October 08, 2008 at 06:19 PM (#2974517)
re: 63

I agree. Your post pretty much sums up my thoughts when I saw the rotation setup on the Globe's website. My first, visceral, reaction was that it reflected an overconfidence bordering on arrogance.

The team had a chance to throw their best pitcher in games 2 and 5 on full rest, and didn't do it. If the series goes 5, you pitched Dice twice and your best pitcher once. Series goes six, you still only pitched your best guy once.

I confess, I don't get it. I understand the Dice K on the road thing. But I don't understand Beckett in game two unless they truly believe his troubles in the ALDS were rust related.

I didn't see rust. I just saw a short fastball. Who knows. I hope I'm wrong and Dice K leads the charge to victory and a Lester game 1 WS start. The pessimist side of me says 0-2 hole going to Boston and a five game ALCS loss.

Granted, I'm not that smart, but I don't get it.
   63. JB H Posted: October 08, 2008 at 06:28 PM (#2974523)
Pretty sure that if the series exists in a vacuum without park or rest considerations, there's no difference between any Lester/Matsuzaka/Beckett x2 configurations the Sox could have chosen.
   64. Vegas Watch Posted: October 08, 2008 at 07:36 PM (#2974589)
Pretty sure that if the series exists in a vacuum without park or rest considerations, there's no difference between any Lester/Matsuzaka/Beckett x2 configurations the Sox could have chosen.

Correct. Ignoring the other factors, pitching Dice-K/Beckett/Lester in 1-3 and 4-7 is no different than Dice-K/Lester/Beckett in those games, even if Lester>>Beckett.

I do wonder if, as noted in #63, it would be preferable to have Beckett pitching the "all hands on deck" G7, since he seems to be more likely to be taken out early at this point.
   65. tfbg9 Posted: October 08, 2008 at 07:47 PM (#2974600)
I didn't see rust. I just saw a short fastball.


Hell, I saw both!
   66. Rocco's Not-so Malfunctioning Mitochondria Posted: October 08, 2008 at 08:14 PM (#2974636)
I'm probably missing something here; I just don't see the rotation setup in #62 as optimal.


Francona's playing the home/road splits. Beckett's better on the road, Lester's better at home, so he's pitching them so that, at least in their first respective starts, Beckett's on the road and Lester is at home.
   67. The Ghost's Tryin' to Reason with Hurricane Season Posted: October 08, 2008 at 08:29 PM (#2974648)
I thought knuckleballers were typically better outdoors, where the breeze added movement.

IIRC, guys who come to a team late in the year and are key contributors usually are voted a full share. So the Sox would vote one to Bay, and the Dodgers to Manny, though Manny's potential for a Sox share as well could have sway.
   68. Nasty Nate Posted: October 08, 2008 at 08:37 PM (#2974656)
Francona's stated rationale is that he didnt want to give any of the 3 SP's either too much or too little rest, so he kept them in the same order as the LDS. I also think (optimistically) that it reveals a confidence in the health of one Joshua Beckett.

I'll be there next tuesday night!
   69. Nasty Nate Posted: October 08, 2008 at 08:50 PM (#2974665)
I thought knuckleballers were typically better outdoors, where the breeze added movement.


Wake's been marginally better indoors over his career. at the Trop, he's had a 2.86 career ERA, although up until this year he was always facing atrocious teams.

He's had a varied League Championship Career: 2 complete game wins in 92 for the Bucs. Left off the roster in 1999. 2 wins versus the Yankees in 2003, but of course the relief appearance in game 7. In 2004: bad stats for the series after getting lit up out of the pen in games 1 & 3, but a season-saving 3 shutout innings in the magical soul-quaking game 5 (which happens to be Wake's last relief appearance). And then last year he got lit up by the Indians in his only LCS game.
   70. Jim Wisinski Posted: October 08, 2008 at 09:26 PM (#2974701)
Wakefield has also said in the past that he likes the way his knuckler moves inside the Trop.
   71. E., Hinske Posted: October 09, 2008 at 12:11 AM (#2974846)
Question for people familiar with the Boston ticket scalping scene. It appears likely I'm going to have a pair that I want to get rid of for Thursday's game. What's the best (both in terms of rate of return and odds of getting ticketed/arrested) way to go about doing this?
   72. Nasty Nate Posted: October 09, 2008 at 01:28 AM (#2974900)
It appears likely I'm going to have a pair that I want to get rid of for Thursday's game. What's the best (both in terms of rate of return and odds of getting ticketed/arrested) way to go about doing this?


give them to me for free
   73. E., Hinske Posted: October 09, 2008 at 02:07 AM (#2974939)
I meant MY rate of return.
   74. Marcel Posted: October 09, 2008 at 02:22 AM (#2974944)
Throw them up on stubhub or aceticket. That's where I usually go to get raped... I mean buy tickets.
   75. Nasty Nate Posted: October 09, 2008 at 02:25 AM (#2974947)
If you go down to the Fenway area, a lot of the people buying tickets will be scalpers who will then re-sell them. If you can find buyers who will actually use them, you will cut out the middle man.

and if you want good karma, there are hundreds of thousands of people who would buy them for face value.
   76. Valentine Posted: October 09, 2008 at 05:18 PM (#2975275)
Pretty sure that if the series exists in a vacuum without park or rest considerations, there's no difference between any Lester/Matsuzaka/Beckett x2 configurations the Sox could have chosen.


Correct. There is an illusion that the order matters, since Game 7 will often not be played, however that only happens when it wouldn't make a difference anyways. In retrospect, did the Angels win in Game 3 of the Division Series matter? Or the three Indians wins in the ALCS last year? The only difference between Game 7 and the other games of the series is that you know AHEAD of time whether or not Game 7 will make a difference.

The ordering of your starters might matter to "momentum" or "confidence", and it can definitely affect whether the series finishes in six games or seven, but mathematically it shouldn't make any difference to the outcome.

My goals for the post-season rotation:
(1) Get Lester, Matsuzaka, and Beckett two starts each. They are the Red Sox best pitchers.

(2) Get Lester into as many home games as possible. Matsuzaka is slightly better on the road than in Fenway. Beckett is MUCH better on the road than in Fenway, and has been in each of the last two years.

(3) Get Matsuzaka extra rest as much as possible. He is a good pitcher on "normal" rest. Excepting the horrendous start in which he was rushed back from the DL (officially 24 days rest, but actually just five days after his one and only rehab start), Matsuzaka has a 3.07 ERA on normal rest, a 2.49 ERA with 5 days rest, and a 1.66 ERA with 6 days rest (13, 8, and 7 GS respectively). You don't want to piss away an advantage like that over lesser considerations.

(4) Avoid having Lester make any unnecessary starts. He is already ~60 innings over his previous career high, and we want him to remain healthy and effective for 2009 and beyond.

Seems that these goals are pretty much what Francona is achieving with his chosen rotation, no?
   77. villageidiom Posted: October 09, 2008 at 09:02 PM (#2975475)
Is one of your goals for the pitching staff not to get into a situation that calls for Mike Timlin? Because he's been added to the roster. He replaces Velasquez.
   78. OCD SS Posted: October 09, 2008 at 09:17 PM (#2975486)
I think one of the goals of the offense is to get into a situation that calls for Mike Timlin; like where they are up by 10 runs.
   79. Marcel Posted: October 09, 2008 at 11:31 PM (#2975560)
Is a 10 run lead really safe enough for Timlin?
   80. villageidiom Posted: October 09, 2008 at 11:41 PM (#2975567)
I just told my daughter that I'm taking her to Game 3. It lines up pretty well - I don't have to pull her out of school, it's a late afternoon start rather than one of those 1 AM dramas.

She's a bit giddy. (I didn't tell her about Timlin.)
   81. Valentine Posted: October 10, 2008 at 12:20 AM (#2975602)
If this were the regular season, Francona might seek to balance the workload among his entire pen.

In the playoffs, I don't expect to see Timlin before the 12th inning of any close game.

He will nonetheless likely be more useful than Gil Velazquez.
   82. Dan Posted: October 10, 2008 at 12:41 AM (#2975625)
At least we're still carrying 3 catchers...bleh.
   83. Nasty Nate Posted: October 10, 2008 at 04:59 PM (#2975993)
Rays dropped Hinske from their ALCS roster. Is he hurt?
   84. alskor Posted: October 10, 2008 at 05:28 PM (#2976021)
Rays dropped Hinske from their ALCS roster. Is he hurt?


Not that Ive heard. In the ALDS Maddon stayed away from using him in logical spots, though... so maybe.

I think its a big karmic mistake on Tampa's part... you gotta give Hinske a revenge chance. Not that he has any reason to take revenge on the Sox, but the way players regularly torch their former teams... you need that karma on your side. Also, he's a better player than whoever replaced him and has a lot of uses.
   85. Dan Posted: October 10, 2008 at 05:53 PM (#2976041)
He doesn't really have much use to them with a healthy Crawford. They prefer Gross in right because he's a similar bat and a better glove, and he's not going to see any PT at the IF corners or at DH over Floyd. His only real use was if they were going to use him to PH for Bartlett, which Maddon didn't do in obvious spots in the ALDS, so he pretty clearly was not going to see any meaningful action.
   86. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: October 10, 2008 at 06:06 PM (#2976068)
Three catchers still enables the Red Sox to pinch-hit for their catchers twice in the late innings of a close game, and while Casey and Drew/Crisp aren't the best PH options, they still make a meaningful upgrade over any of the catchers. Given Tito's Game 3 managing, I think carrying Ross remains the right call.
   87. Nasty Nate Posted: October 10, 2008 at 06:13 PM (#2976079)
And Ross is a better hitter than Cash (right?) so they could even use him for pinch-hitting if the bench is depleted in a game.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Tuque
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.8247 seconds
41 querie(s) executed