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. Darren Posted: October 24, 2007 at 02:12 AM (#2590997)
Another thing: I cannot believe that Snyder is on the roster over... anyone. I'd take any of Corey/Hansack/Tavarez over him.
   2. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: October 24, 2007 at 02:25 AM (#2591000)
World Series Preview:

I predict...PAIN!
   3. Nasty Nate Posted: October 24, 2007 at 02:45 AM (#2591017)
I think its gotta be Lester in game 4. I think the ALCS showed us that they wont start Beckett on 3 days rest.
   4. Textbook Editor Posted: October 24, 2007 at 02:46 AM (#2591018)
I'm not optimistic. But then in 2004 I was very worried about St. Louis and we all know how that played out.

I can't see the Snyder pick over Tavarez unless there's an injury there we don't know about. You absolutely have to assume Schilling can only go 6 good innings in each of his starts, and that you would be very lucky to get 5 good innings out of Matsusaka. That leaves a lot of pen time to dole out, to say nothing of extra innings, or the assumed Lester start in Game 4 that could end badly, or if/when either of Schilling/Matsusaka getting shelled.

If Matsusaka gets shelled in Game 3 (a high probability, in my mind) and leaves after 2 innings, Snyder probably can only give you 2 innings max (maybe 3 if you were willing to then have him not available the next day), whereas Tavarez is more stretched out and could give you the 4 you'd need to get to the "good pen" guys for the 7th. Snyder is not a guy who could give you 4 innings--ever--and I would give very good odds one of the 4 Schilling/Matsusaka starts will be less than 3 IP, especially the Matsusaka start at Coors.

It will be very interesting to see how Tito plays the double-switches, etc. at Coors. We got very, very lucky in 2004 that our starting pitching was basically lights-out in Games 3 & 4 in St. Louis and making NL-style moves did not come into play almost at all. We will not be so lucky in 2007, and I just worry that this will come into play (and bite us in the ass) in at least one game at Coors.

I think it is absolutely critical we win both games at Fenway to start, because while I think we could steal a game at Coors (Beckett Game 5), I don't think there's any way we win 3 there, let alone 2--there's just too much going against us in the Matsusaka/Lester games.

There's no way Beckett pitches Game 4 unless we're down 3-0, and even then I think it's unlikely, because Lester would still have to start one of Games 4/5 if you're going to win 4 in a row--why not let him start 4 and then Beckett goes in Game 5 on regular rest.

This will be a very, very interesting series--it could be the most entertaining one in quite a while.
   5. plink Posted: October 24, 2007 at 03:33 AM (#2591035)
Snyder is not a guy who could give you 4 innings--ever

I'm high on Snyder than most, but it's worth noting that Snyder had a 4.1 IP relief appearance in '06, and four 3+ IP relief appearances in '05. Additionally, he's pitched better than Tavarez this year.

Although, it looks like Snyder got far better defense this year; Tavarez' FIP is lower. Not what I expected.

I do think the difference between Tavarez and Snyder is minimal, and will only come into play if the Broncos score two touchdowns in a game.
   6. PJ Martinez Posted: October 24, 2007 at 04:18 AM (#2591064)
"I had predicted the Sox to be big favorites, but looking at the teams, they’re more evenly matched that I thought."

I feel the same way. There's the league differential, I suppose, but even that seemed smaller this year.

Our starters have been inconsistent lately, and our bullpen is, like most bullpens, top-heavy.

The Sox lineup has a clear advantage in Boston, with the DH, but not necessarily in Colorado, I don't think. There are a lot of good hitters on that team.
   7. Hugh Jorgan Posted: October 24, 2007 at 06:12 AM (#2591088)
Game 4....Hmmm. If we are down 3-0, Beckett will pitch it. Anything else, it'll be Lester. Ellsbury has to start the 1st two games and if continues to add some life to the lower third of the order, then he continues. If we lead after 6(oki and paps time), then you bring in coco to man center and move Ellsbury to left for defense...especially at Coors.
Lugo...sh-t I don't know. Can you really consider having papi at 1st, youk at 3rd and throwing Lowell at ss??
All I can say is yikes on the defensive zone ratings. Surely Lugo will hit .250 at some point in time???
I think the series can be close, 6 games perhaps, but in saying that if we can just take that 1st game it'll interesting to see how the Rockies respond in game 2...they haven't lost in a long time.
As someone already mentioned, long relief is a nightmarish position for us so if we have someone knocked out before the 5th, then that game is pretty much lost I reckon.
   8. Baldrick Posted: October 24, 2007 at 06:31 AM (#2591091)
For sure sit Ortiz against a lefty in Colorado. I'm starting to become persuaded that it wouldn't be a terrible idea to sit him for two or even all three of the games. His knee is a serious problem and deploying him well in a crucial pinch-hit situation could leverage one at-bat enough to make it worth 1.5/2 normal ones. Plus, you can always do a reverse-defensive replacement and just bring him out halfway through if you really need to.

Ellsbury for the first two games. No question. Crisp for the three in Colorado. No question. If/when games 6 and 7 are an issue, make a judgment then. If Crisp shows ANY signs of life, I think you play him since he's the better player in general. But if he looks as pathetic as he did in the LCS, you'd be better off with anyone else out there.

Can't sit Lugo. Bad as he's been, there's no reason to think the alternative would be any better. And he at least theoretically has the capacity to not play like garbage.

Beckett should only go in game 4 if it's 0-3. As someone said in a different thread, the choice is between a) a fully rested Beckett and fully rested Dice-K and b) Beckett on short-rest twice. That is not a very tough call. The only thing I could think of is that Beckett is a "big game" guy and you want someone like that in a do-or-die game 7. But I don't see any reason to believe that Dice-K is more likely to pitch badly because it's game 7. He'll pitch the same as he always does and we'll go to the bullpen after 5 innings.

Which means it's Lester for game 4. That's fine. It's not ideal but it's not like they've got anyone good to put against him. And we do have a lot of options out of the pen to mix and match, depending on how deep the starters get into the prior games.

The Sox are the better team - pretty obviously, I think - but it's only in a 55/45 sort of sense. Basically, I think it's clear who the better team is but even armed with that information I don't think it means a whole lot.

I'm really looking forward to watching each team play in the other's home park. Probably the two most unique places to play the game around right now.
   9. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: October 24, 2007 at 06:51 AM (#2591099)
The first two games are massive.

I am hoping the movie thread keeps going to keep my mind off the series, until it starts.
   10. bibigon Posted: October 24, 2007 at 01:00 PM (#2591201)
With the way the Red Sox pitching lines up, they pretty much need to take the first two games to remain favored. If they lose the first two, then obviously the Rockies are favored, but even with a split, then they need to win three of five on the road, with only one Beckett start remaining.
   11. Famous Original Joe C Posted: October 24, 2007 at 01:21 PM (#2591238)
For sure sit Ortiz against a lefty in Colorado. I'm starting to become persuaded that it wouldn't be a terrible idea to sit him for two or even all three of the games. His knee is a serious problem and deploying him well in a crucial pinch-hit situation could leverage one at-bat enough to make it worth 1.5/2 normal ones.

I have to disagree, Baldrick - Ortiz is the best hitter on the team. *Maybe* you sit him against a lefty, but you have to have him in there against a RHP. It's not like Lowell or Youk amke for a slouch Ph either.

Since I'm "among friends", what's up with the sudden "teh red sox are teh evil yankees times a million!" crap that's being thrown around lately. Fine, I get why people wouldn't like the Red Sox - but the hyperbole being thrown around defending that point of view is completely absurd.
   12. Dave Cyprian Posted: October 24, 2007 at 01:30 PM (#2591257)
Why is there such trepidation about Lester? He's arm is fresh, they managed to get him some innings in the ALCS where he looked good, and the Rockies have a tougher time with LHP. I actually think considering the pitching match-up its a game that gives us as good a chance to win as the two before it.
   13. IronChef Chris Wok Posted: October 24, 2007 at 02:20 PM (#2591321)
You HAVE to sit Papi against the Lefty at Coors.
   14. WS2007Ticketholder Posted: October 24, 2007 at 02:29 PM (#2591339)
World Series Preview:

I predict...PAIN!


I couldn't have said it ANY better Biffster.
   15. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: October 24, 2007 at 02:37 PM (#2591354)
It gonna rain in Boston tonight. Yuck.
   16. bunyon Posted: October 24, 2007 at 02:46 PM (#2591366)
Ortiz/Youk/Lowell: Who sits in Colorado? I’m really worried about Ortiz’s knee. If it’s bothering him as much as it seems to be, they may not want to risk him in the field. Plus, having his bat ready for a super-important AB would be nice too.

The PH issue is a big one, I think. It'll hurt to lose Ortiz's bat, but is Ortiz bat + Ortiz glove really better than Youkalis' bat + Youalis' glove? And if you're bringing one off the bench to PH, only one of them routinely hits after not playing in the field. It seems a no brainer. Not to mention you get Ortiz some rest for his knee which should ensure he's ready for games 6 and 7, if they need him.
   17. Dizzypaco Posted: October 24, 2007 at 02:52 PM (#2591376)
I don't get the pessimism about playing in Colarado. Of course the Sox could win two or three games in Colorado. Its not like the Rocks are the 27 Yankees. Even if Matsuzaka has a mediocre (or worse) game, what's to stop the Red Sox from scoring bunches of runs?

Its a short series. Anything can happen. Including winning a couple in Colorado. Of course, they won't be the favorites if they don't win the first couple at home, but it won't be any reason to panic. We just took three straight from a better Cleveland team.

Ortiz will probably play against a righty in Colorado, Youks against a lefty. Lugo will play short - there's no point in even discussing other options. You don't put Lowell at short when you haven't done it all year.

Whether Ellsbury plays center in Colorado may depend on how he does the first couple of days. I'm surprised to hear all the pessimism about Ellsbury's defense - I thought he was good defensively, even if not as good as Crisp.
   18. Dave Cyprian Posted: October 24, 2007 at 03:32 PM (#2591440)
Paco, its a relative pessimism. I think most of us here assume Ellsbury in CF going forward next year is a no-brainer. Still, that doesn't mean that if Jacoby had missed a tough catch in the ALCS, or does so in the WS, that we all wouldn't be thinking Coco would have had it.
   19. Lassus Posted: October 24, 2007 at 03:36 PM (#2591445)
Is there a site that has the square yardage of the Coors CF vs. the Sox CF? I'd love to see that figure with all this talk about how massive that outfield is.
   20. Toby Posted: October 24, 2007 at 04:41 PM (#2591525)
In the abstract, the Sox are a significantly better team than the Rockies. That said, when you look at the particular strengths and weaknesses of the two teams, the Sox have matchup problems against the Rockies and, in particular, against the Rockies in Coors. So it's a lot more dicey. Should be a good series. I'm extremely glad we have home field.
   21. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: October 24, 2007 at 04:45 PM (#2591529)
here are the dimensions for the outfield, as listed on ballparks.com

Dimensions:
Left field: 347 ft.
left-center: 390 ft.
center field: 415 ft.
right-center: 375 ft.
right field: 350 ft.
backstop: 56 ft.

certainly seems big, the power alleys in particular. comparable to comerica park. the sox got killed there leading up the all-star break, if memory serves.


http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/coorsf.htm
   22. PJ Martinez Posted: October 24, 2007 at 06:03 PM (#2591622)
"even with a split, then they need to win three of five on the road"

Huh?

"if Jacoby had missed a tough catch in the ALCS"

If?
   23. johan Posted: October 24, 2007 at 07:47 PM (#2591795)
I would have thought the Rockies would go with Morales in game 3, Cook in 4 and send Fogg to the pen. I just don't see why they would ever set their rotation so that Fogg pitches twice when they have better options.
   24. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: October 24, 2007 at 11:13 PM (#2592073)
I'm rooting for the Red Sox, naturally, but think this series is a coin flip.
   25. Miko Supports Shane's Spam Habit Posted: October 25, 2007 at 04:42 AM (#2592769)
in particular, against the Rockies in Coors.

Not looking forward to Manny trying to chase a ball down in the left-center gap.
   26. Dan Posted: October 25, 2007 at 04:46 AM (#2592772)
Damnit Darren, where's our thread on tonight's game?
   27. 1k5v3L Posted: October 25, 2007 at 04:48 AM (#2592774)
My guess is Darren is trolling on the Rockies message board on espn.
   28. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: October 25, 2007 at 04:48 AM (#2592775)
--Manny playing LF in Coors? Ahhhhhh!

I remember, when Manny was an FA, ESPN pushing the idea of his going to the Rockies. He was not yet a folk hero -- in fact, I'm not sure people outside Cleveland had the foggiest idea just how nutty he is -- and I'm not sure his defense was as bad (or was known to be as bad) then. The Rockies had been throwing money around in a vain attempt to get back to the playoffs. I remember Jayson Stark's eyes, in particular, seemed to light up over the idea of Manny in Colorado. In retrospect, it would have been awesome to behold -- both on offense, where he might have habitually looked like Barry Bonds back in the bad old days of Coors, and on defense, where he might have caused the downfall of Western society.
   29. Darren Posted: October 25, 2007 at 04:49 AM (#2592777)
Dammit Dan, where's your refresh button? :)

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.3136 seconds
60 querie(s) executed