2013 Pennant Chase

[SoxFanForsyth]

September is going to be a big month for the Sox and the AL East.

Discuss any and all activity that affects the race here.

Sox are 1.0 games up right now (about to move to 1.5 if the Rays lose today).

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Rays lose 11-1! Got to win the O's series and sweep the White Sox the series after. I will not settle for a WC.

[rjortiz]

Clay Buchholz pitched on Sunday for Lowell. Threw 38 pitches over an inning. He allowed three runs on a hit, and three walks. I'm not reading a lot into this start, seeing as it was his first since his injury. He makes one more rehab start, and is projected to come off the DL against the Tigers on September 4th. Matt Moore is coming off the DL on September 3rd against the Angels.

Buchholz will likely bump Dempster, and Moore will likely bump Hernandez. A big factor in deciding the race could be which starter returns to form the fastest. BP has the Red Sox at 93.5 wins, and a 60% chance to win the division. It has the Rays at 92.6 wins, with a 37% chance to win the division. Fangraphs is at 94 wins for Boston, 93 for Tampa. It's possible we could see a one-game playoff to determine who wins the East.

[rjortiz]

Also, my book has the Red Sox at -120, and the Rays at EVEN money to win the East. Might want to place a wager on that line, although I love the Red Sox at 9/1 to win the whole thing.

[sk7326]

Tie considerations:

A division winner or a tie for WC #2, only cases where we get a tiebreaker game ...

Tiebreakers:

2-way

1. Head to Head
2. Division Record
3. Record in last 81 non-interleague games
4. Record in last 81+X non-interleague games (X = as many games not involving the two tied teams as needed to break the tie)

Three way tie: Teams A, B and C ... game 1: A hosts B, game 2: winner of game 1 hosts C. Team that wins tiebreaker chooses which team they want to be. (host 2 games, or win one road game). Order of draw determined by a process similar to 2 team and not worth getting into

[SoxFanForsyth]

Man, how good would it be if the A's won the West, Tigers Central, Sox East, and then you got to see Price vs Darvish for a 1 game play in?

And then you got to see the Tigers and Rays battle it out while the Sox took on the A's.

That would be a beautifully set up AL Postseason.

[Thunder]

Man, how good would it be if the A's won the West, Tigers Central, Sox East, and then you got to see Price vs Darvish for a 1 game play in?

And then you got to see the Tigers and Rays battle it out while the Sox took on the A's.

That would be a beautifully set up AL Postseason.
That matchup may not happen. Assuming the seeding comes down to game 162, managers may not rest their aces for that one game playoff.

[Thunder]

With the Rays loss today, they tie the Sox in the L column. That's huge for us.

[a700hitter]

With the Rays loss today, they tie the Sox in the L column. That's huge for us.We are back in control of our own destiny.

[rjortiz]

They'll never get rid of divisions, but it seems unfair that a better team out of the East will have to play in a playoff game, whereas the Rangers/A's get to feast on the Mariners and Astros 19 times a year.

[BigPapiEnFuego]

They'll never get rid of divisions, but it seems unfair that a better team out of the East will have to play in a playoff game, whereas the Rangers/A's get to feast on the Mariners and Astros 19 times a year.

They really need to just even out the schedule. Playing 18 games or whatever against each team in your division sucks. I don't know when that started but I bet it was based on capitalizing on the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry. I don't care to see them so many times a year, or the Orioles, or Rays. It'd be nice to see other teams more often.

[User Name?]

Yankees-Red Sox is not the only important rivalry that the MLB saw as a cash-cow.

Dodgers-Giants, Braves-Mets (when the Mets weren't sucking), Cards-Cubs, Mets-Phils have all been, at one point or another, veritable cash cows for MLB.

[sk7326]

the sport would benefit by more balanced schedules. For instance, 13 vs division, 8 against everyone else = 52 + 80 = 132 + 30 against other league. Could end up making it series' vs 10 teams instead of just 5. Basically means everybody in the AL will have 142 of the 162 games be the same - which is a large improvement over the current situatons.

[Bellhorn04]

Sure is nice when you pick up ground on an off day. Yankees lost too.

[Youk Of The Nation]

I vote for keeping the schedule the way it is for every team except the Sox, who should play 162 games against the Astros.

[Bellhorn04]

I vote for keeping the schedule the way it is for every team except the Sox, who should play 162 games against the Astros.

That sounds good, but every loss would create panic and hysteria in the Nation. Even moreso than losses do now.

[Youk Of The Nation]

True, true. Plus that fucking hill.

[SoxFanForsyth]

ESPN has a nice additional option to their MLB Standings called "Hunt for October", which outlines what each team has left in terms of home games vs away games, opponents combined W%, etc.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/huntforoctober

As of today, the Sox have 30 games left, 18 home, 12 away, with a combined opponent W% of .517. ESPN projects them to win 95 games (18-12 in final 30 games, a .600 W%).

Also as of today, the Rays have 33 games left, 14 home, 19 away, with a combined opponent W% of .504. ESPN projects them to win 92 games (18-15 in their final 33, a .545 W%).

[Thunder]

ESPN has a nice additional option to their MLB Standings called "Hunt for October", which outlines what each team has left in terms of home games vs away games, opponents combined W%, etc.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/huntforoctober

As of today, the Sox have 30 games left, 18 home, 12 away, with a combined opponent W% of .517. ESPN projects them to win 95 games (18-12 in final 30 games, a .600 W%).

Also as of today, the Rays have 33 games left, 14 home, 19 away, with a combined opponent W% of .504. ESPN projects them to win 92 games (18-15 in their final 33, a .545 W%).

Great find. That's actually a really interesting feature.

[Behindenemylines]

Clay Buchholz pitched on Sunday for Lowell. Threw 38 pitches over an inning. He allowed three runs on a hit, and three walks. I'm not reading a lot into this start, seeing as it was his first since his injury. He makes one more rehab start, and is projected to come off the DL against the Tigers on September 4th. Matt Moore is coming off the DL on September 3rd against the Angels.

Buchholz will likely bump Dempster, and Moore will likely bump Hernandez. A big factor in deciding the race could be which starter returns to form the fastest. BP has the Red Sox at 93.5 wins, and a 60% chance to win the division. It has the Rays at 92.6 wins, with a 37% chance to win the division. Fangraphs is at 94 wins for Boston, 93 for Tampa. It's possible we could see a one-game playoff to determine who wins the East.

I agree. The teams are pretty close and the difference could come down to which team gets more out of their returning starter.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Fangraphs has added a Playoff Odds section to their site -

http://www.fangraphs.com/coolstandings.aspx

I'm not sure if it's exactly a replica of Coolstandings, or if they add some of their own stuff in there. Either way, they have the Red Sox with a 81.8% probability of winning the division, a 98.2% probability of making the post season, a 32.4% chance of making the ALCS, and an 18.1% chance of making the world series.

Oddly enough, the 18.1% chance of making the world series is the highest probability of any team in baseball. The Tigers (17.7% probability) are second.

[BenUKPatsSoxCeltics4Life]

Trying to work out who did that Maths?? one of the most optimistic of us. The % chance of winning div is somewhere in mid-high 60's now(%).

The playoff stuff seems much more solid. But the division maths for our division is crazy, they have the O's at <2% which I just can't see the error in terms of I cannot fathom what they have used.

But you come up with some great resources RFF.

[SoxFanForsyth]

The Rays now have 32 games left, of which 19 are away.

They blew a win last night in one of their very few home games left this season, which is going to put more pressure on them to win on the road.

With 32 games in 33 days, and a busted up bullpen from the KC game on Monday, they're getting lucky to have the rosters expand. Otherwise their bullpen arms could be shot.

Then again, who knows how well some of their rookies are going to come up and throw. You can't put too much reliance on them, particularly not in a pressure environment.

[BenUKPatsSoxCeltics4Life]

People are saying that Tampa have a good schedule because of the lowest opponents % but frankly , 4 games V LAA away is not exactly a "cake walk"

[Bellhorn04]

People are saying that Tampa have a good schedule because of the lowest opponents % but frankly , 4 games V LAA away is not exactly a "cake walk"

Yeah the Angels could give the Rays a hard time. The Halos have had a terrible season, obviously, and they're out of it, but they still have talented players and now they have nothing to lose. Just the kind of team that can be a real pain in the ass.

[Behindenemylines]

People are saying that Tampa have a good schedule because of the lowest opponents % but frankly , 4 games V LAA away is not exactly a "cake walk"

They have the whole 10 game west coast trip. Besides the Angels they also get the A's and Mariners. You know the A's will be tough because they still can win their division, and with Seattle you hope they get King Felix in one of those games. This is not an easy trip for the Rays.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Boy the A's have really hit their straps recently. Scoring a ton of runs.

Nice to see since the Rays are heading out there tomorrow.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Rays lose. 3 back (as of now, Sox have a chance to make it 3.5 with a win tonight) with almost 2/3 of their final games on the road.

[Thunder]

Rays didn't need Rodney to blow it today.

My goal is that the Sox be at least 3 games ahead of the Rays when their 3 game series in TB starts in 2 weeks. That is the last meeting. The Sox could put them out of the race essentially, but they have insurance. If they happen to get swept, they still have a lead.

[jung]

The team really under the gun in today's games are the O's. If they lose three games to the all important -column to the Sox they are about done. That is exactly what will happen if they go down tonight.

Buck was funny last night....just about emptied the pen. He does not seem to realize that he is just playing into the Sox hands as eventually he is left with nobody to go to while the guy on the mound slowly turns into a meat popsicle.

[sk7326]

The team really under the gun in today's games are the O's. If they lose three games to the all important -column to the Sox they are about done. That is exactly what will happen if they go down tonight.

Buck was funny last night....just about emptied the pen. He does not seem to realize that he is just playing into the Sox hands as eventually he is left with nobody to go to while the guy on the mound slowly turns into a meat popsicle.

Tillman has been a puzzle for the Sox all season, so it'll be fun to see if they make any headway this time. Also good to see if Lester figured something out or was the last couple of starts a pitcher-park driven illusion.

[jung]

Fenway is such a tough place for LH pitchers to pitch. We might end up having to look at something other than whether Lester is a dominating force tonight if we are looking for fluke vs no fluke.

I will want to see Lester attack again tonight. If he attacks again, then I am convinced that unless he has nothing to offer tonight, he will pitch well. He may not dominate. He may not even win. But if he attacks, he will pitch well and for me, that will be enough.

Somehow when he does not attack he ends up not even distinguishing between hitters and he ends up picking at the corners pitching to some 125 lb soaking wet, 2nd baseman that simply does not pose a threat in the classic sense.

[rjortiz]

Fangraphs gives us a 91% chance to win the division as of this morning. I'm starting to think our focus should be on home-field advantage throughout the playoffs now. Tigers are projected to finish with 95 wins, the Red Sox at 96. Hopefully, we can take 2/3 to get some breathing room.

[Thunder]

I was listening to ESPN radio last night, and all of their experts agree that the Sox win the East by at least 3 games.

[Palodios]

Fangraphs gives us a 91% chance to win the division as of this morning. I'm starting to think our focus should be on home-field advantage throughout the playoffs now. Tigers are projected to finish with 95 wins, the Red Sox at 96. Hopefully, we can take 2/3 to get some breathing room.

It isn't just home-field advantage. Its also about being able to play a first round team who doesn't have their ace.

[Bellhorn04]

I was listening to ESPN radio last night, and all of their experts agree that the Sox win the East by at least 3 games.

There's still a long way to go.

[rjortiz]

It isn't just home-field advantage. Its also about being able to play a first round team who doesn't have their ace.

That's very true.

[Bellhorn04]

It isn't just home-field advantage. Its also about being able to play a first round team who doesn't have their ace.

? That's all luck of the draw. If you look at last year's wild card games you'll see most of the starters weren't the aces. The wild card teams can't really set things up like that. But you do have a better chance of facing a team whose rotation is messed up.

[Palodios]

? That's all luck of the draw. If you look at last year's wild card games you'll see most of the starters weren't the aces. The wild card teams can't really set things up like that. But you do have a better chance of facing a team whose rotation is messed up.

This is more or less what I meant. Either you're facing a team who went balls to the wall to get into the playoffs, and had the best guy available to pitch the wild card, or the team is firm in the wildcard slot and had their best pitcher start the wild card game. Either way, it is a big advantage that the #1 seed has over the #2 seed.

[Bellhorn04]

This is more or less what I meant. Either you're facing a team who went balls to the wall to get into the playoffs, and had the best guy available to pitch the wild card, or the team is firm in the wildcard slot and had their best pitcher start the wild card game. Either way, it is a big advantage that the #1 seed has over the #2 seed.

In theory, it is a sizable advantage. In reality, I'm not so sure it is. Last year the wild card winners were Baltimore and St. Louis. Baltimore lost to the Yankees in 5 games, the last 4 of which were ridiculously close. St. Louis knocked off Washington and had a 3-1 lead on the Giants before blowing it.

The wild card winners may be a little more tired than the teams they play in the LDS, but they may be sharper too because they've played more meaningful games recently. I think most of it washes out.

[rjortiz]

In theory, it is a sizable advantage. In reality, I'm not so sure it is. Last year the wild card winners were Baltimore and St. Louis. Baltimore lost to the Yankees in 5 games, the last 4 of which were ridiculously close. St. Louis knocked off Washington and had a 3-1 lead on the Giants before blowing it.

The wild card winners may be a little more tired than the teams they play in the LDS, but they may be sharper too because they've played more meaningful games recently. I think most of it washes out.

I think that has more to do with baseball being a crapshoot in general, not that the theory is incorrect. Not facing an ace twice improves your chances of winning the series, but I think too many people ridiculously inflate the winning probability when an ace is on the mound.

[Bellhorn04]

I think that has more to do with baseball being a crapshoot in general, not that the theory is incorrect. Not facing an ace twice improves your chances of winning the series, but I think too many people ridiculously inflate the winning probability when an ace is on the mound.

Seems about right.

[Palodios]

In theory, it is a sizable advantage. In reality, I'm not so sure it is. Last year the wild card winners were Baltimore and St. Louis. Baltimore lost to the Yankees in 5 games, the last 4 of which were ridiculously close. St. Louis knocked off Washington and had a 3-1 lead on the Giants before blowing it.

The wild card winners may be a little more tired than the teams they play in the LDS, but they may be sharper too because they've played more meaningful games recently. I think most of it washes out.

You're referring to a very small sample size. If the Red Sox face the Rays without Price, The A's without Colon, the Yankees without Kuroda, the Royals without Shields.... the playoffs are a crapshoot, but filtering out a team's best pitcher will always go in a team's favor.

[Bellhorn04]

You're referring to a very small sample size. If the Red Sox face the Rays without Price, The A's without Colon, the Yankees without Kuroda, the Royals without Shields.... the playoffs are a crapshoot, but filtering out a team's best pitcher will always go in a team's favor.

You're still going to see their ace on regular rest even if it's not in Game One though. There's an off day before the wild card game, one before the LDS and one during the series.

[Thunder]

We miss CC this weekend, but get Kuroda.

[sk7326]

I think that has more to do with baseball being a crapshoot in general, not that the theory is incorrect. Not facing an ace twice improves your chances of winning the series, but I think too many people ridiculously inflate the winning probability when an ace is on the mound.

It's not the pitcher advantage that makes the WC round such a big deal ... it is simply having to play a single elimination game, and having to win more games to win the world series. Division winners have to win 11 games to win it all, WC 12 and play an extra round. Once you get to the ALDS, then I think the other factors even out more or less - especially with a chance to reset the roster for the round.

[Bellhorn04]

It's not the pitcher advantage that makes the WC round such a big deal ... it is simply having to play a single elimination game, and having to win more games to win the world series. Division winners have to win 11 games to win it all, WC 12 and play an extra round. Once you get to the ALDS, then I think the other factors even out more or less - especially with a chance to reset the roster for the round.

That's the way I see it too. Being a wild card team is obviously very dicey because there's a 50/50 chance you're going to be done right away. But the winner of that game has just as good a chance as a wild card team under the old format did.

[rjortiz]

It's not the pitcher advantage that makes the WC round such a big deal ... it is simply having to play a single elimination game, and having to win more games to win the world series. Division winners have to win 11 games to win it all, WC 12 and play an extra round. Once you get to the ALDS, then I think the other factors even out more or less - especially with a chance to reset the roster for the round.

I agree with this. I assumed that this was already known, and was more interested in the impact of pitching probables on winning a series.

[sk7326]

I agree with this. I assumed that this was already known, and was more interested in the impact of pitching probables on winning a series.

I suspect if you can pitch your #1 guy twice it is obviously a good thing. Although I wonder how much of that is tempered by the randomness of a 1v1 matchup. I wonder if getting your #1 guy off the other guys #1 to a game you don't have to worry about would be better.

That is, let's say the other team has a true ace and three #3/#4 caliber guys ... would it make more sense to pitch your #1 against the ace, or would it be better to try to move one of the other matchups into a very high probability and let the randomness of baseball run its course with the Game 1 guy.

[rjortiz]

I suspect if you can pitch your #1 guy twice it is obviously a good thing. Although I wonder how much of that is tempered by the randomness of a 1v1 matchup. I wonder if getting your #1 guy off the other guys #1 to a game you don't have to worry about would be better.

That is, let's say the other team has a true ace and three #3/#4 caliber guys ... would it make more sense to pitch your #1 against the ace, or would it be better to try to move one of the other matchups into a very high probability and let the randomness of baseball run its course with the Game 1 guy.

I think that it would be banking too much on a win the day your ace pitches. If by some chance he loses that start, then there's a good chance that he doesn't make another one in a five game series, and even if he did it would most likely be against the other team's ace on full rest.

[sk7326]

I think that it would be banking too much on a win the day your ace pitches. If by some chance he loses that start, then there's a good chance that he doesn't make another one in a five game series, and even if he did it would most likely be against the other team's ace on full rest.

Really I think it often evens out, just musing on the possibilities. After all, even the most blatant mismatches (like some of those Yankees-Twins series from yore, or the 2007 World Series) were never really much more than 60-40. This isn't college football fortunately. Also there is the variable of the bullpen - both in actual ability (which is essentially random - few bullpens are good year to year), and how the manager deploys the pitchers. The managing of the bullpen is one of the few truly tangible differences a manager can make to affect on field success. It's one of the things Bruce Bochy did for SF despite being nothing special in a lot of other ways.

[rjortiz]

Really I think it often evens out, just musing on the possibilities. After all, even the most blatant mismatches (like some of those Yankees-Twins series from yore, or the 2007 World Series) were never really much more than 60-40. This isn't college football fortunately. Also there is the variable of the bullpen - both in actual ability (which is essentially random - few bullpens are good year to year), and how the manager deploys the pitchers. The managing of the bullpen is one of the few truly tangible differences a manager can make to affect on field success. It's one of the things Bruce Bochy did for SF despite being nothing special in a lot of other ways.

I wonder when we'll see a team that forgoes the starting pitcher and goes all bullpen. It's arguable that a team like the Rangers would be better off not using their fourth starter, and starting the game with their bullpen.

[Behindenemylines]

Sox schedule the next few weeks is a killer. Tigers - $panks - Rays - $panks again - then Baltimore. Even with the 5 game lead the Sox are going to have to beat all teams that are in the playoff chase.

[rjortiz]

Sox schedule the next few weeks is a killer. Tigers - $panks - Rays - $panks again - then Baltimore. Even with the 5 game lead the Sox are going to have to beat all teams that are in the playoff chase.

$panks? Why not just call the Rays the Gays while you're at it?

[SoxFanForsyth]

Well the Sox also get Buchholz (or for the immature crowd, Buttholz) back in the Rays series, and have Lackey Lester Peavy and Doubront going against the Yankees. Then Buch Lackey Lester against the Rays, and Peavy Doubront Buch against the Yankees.

In that 10 game stretch, I expect the Sox to win 7

[mvp 78]

Buttholz is going to get pounded his first few appearances. He better bring the KY and have a stiff drink ready the way those teams can swing their sticks. He's definitely not going to have any clean innings. Might need to have some baby wipes on hand.

[Behindenemylines]

$panks? Why not just call the Rays the Gays while you're at it?

What a closet Yankee fan? Your team is winning today.

[rjortiz]

What a closet Yankee fan? Your team is winning today.

FU Dead $ux fan. Hope you like cheering on Big Poopy, and Shane Dickorino!

[rjortiz]

Buttholz is going to get pounded his first few appearances. He better bring the KY and have a stiff drink ready the way those teams can swing their sticks. He's definitely not going to have any clean innings. Might need to have some baby wipes on hand.

Really depends on his next rehab start. Apparently he was at 94 his last one, so that is an encouraging sign. He also didn't walk anyone.

[sk7326]

The results on the rehab outings have not been encouraging - but have to take the results with a giant lump of salt. Clearly he is working things out, make sure his arm remains attached to his body, that his pitches still work. We don't know what actual instructions he had for his rehab outing.

[User Name?]

I wonder when we'll see a team that forgoes the starting pitcher and goes all bullpen. It's arguable that a team like the Rangers would be better off not using their fourth starter, and starting the game with their bullpen.

Never. Because this is a ridiculous idea.

[rjortiz]

Well the Sox also get Buchholz (or for the immature crowd, Buttholz) back in the Rays series, and have Lackey Lester Peavy and Doubront going against the Yankees. Then Buch Lackey Lester against the Rays, and Peavy Doubront Buch against the Yankees.

In that 10 game stretch, I expect the Sox to win 7

7/10 with seven on the road is bold. ESPN.com has Peavy, Doubront, Lackey, and Lester against the Yankees. I'm guessing a split on the road. Not sure what the Rays are going to look like next week. I'm guessing it's going to be Price, Cobb, and Archer, because they can skip Hernandez/Hellickson with Monday off. We'll probably pitch Buchholz, Peavy, and Doubront. I'll guess 1/3 on the road. Then we get the Yankees at home, which will probably look like Lackey, Lester, Buchholz vs. Kuroda, Sabathia, Pettitte. I think we at least win 2/3, if not all three.

My guess is 5/10. Even if the Rays were to win all three series (@Mariners, vs Red Sox, @Twins), they'd only pick up a game. Assuming they are 4.5 out by the time the Yankees series starts, that would leave them 3.5 out 14 to go. We could go 5-6 in our remaining 11, which would force them to go 10-4. Also, working against them is no days off after the 9th, which is going to force them to use a five man rotation.

[Dojji]

Never. Because this is a ridiculous idea.

Didn't Chuck Finley try this once with the A's? He'd try everything. The flaw in the idea is that you can't pretend you can predict how far into a game a reliever can go and having multiple pitchers committed to be available for tomorrow destroys your flexibility in the long run.

[rjortiz]

Never. Because this is a ridiculous idea.

Would you like to elaborate? I should also qualify that I mean in an elimination game.

Also, I shouldn't say all bullpen. A starter would obviously be needed toward the end of the game.

[rjortiz]

Didn't Chuck Finley try this once with the A's? He'd try everything. The flaw in the idea is that you can't pretend you can predict how far into a game a reliever can go.

Looking at the Rangers, they could go Nathan, Cotts, Ross, Frasor, Soria, and Feliz for the first six or seven.

[User Name?]

Would you like to elaborate? I should also qualify that I mean in an elimination game.

Also, I shouldn't say all bullpen. A starter would obviously be needed toward the end of the game.

Even in an elimination game, a starter on short rest is better than a relief pitcher who's likely to be overworked as well for multiple innings. There's just no logical way to defend such a move.

[User Name?]

Looking at the Rangers, they could go Nathan, Cotts, Ross, Frasor, Soria, and Feliz for the first six or seven.

And it would still make no sense.

[Bellhorn04]

Would you like to elaborate? I should also qualify that I mean in an elimination game.

Also, I shouldn't say all bullpen. A starter would obviously be needed toward the end of the game.

Well, I've never seen a relief pitcher parade like the 2011 World Series. I just looked it up and the 2 times combined had 58 pitcher changes in 7 games. So each team was averaging 5 pitchers a game. That was modern baseball at its best/worst.

[sk7326]

A pure bullpen sort of idea COULD make sense ... for the wild card game, but almost certainly doesn't for the reasons mentioned (your relief pitchers are almost always inferior, otherwise they'd start). And that is only because you get to re-rack your pitching staff if you get to advance. Frankly, for me - it'd make much more sense in that instance to only carry 8 pitchers and load up on specialists (Berry, McDonald) who'd be nice to have for a very specific situation.

[Palodios]

And it would still make no sense.

Remember the 2011 season where everyone was asking... Who the hell do they get to pitch the 3rd game in the playoffs? With a back-end rotation filled with guys like Weiland and Bedard, the best option was to pitch Buchholz for 3 innings, and then see what happens. It would only make sense for a team with a top-heavy rotation and zero depth.

[User Name?]

Remember the 2011 season where everyone was asking... Who the hell do they get to pitch the 3rd game in the playoffs? With a back-end rotation filled with guys like Weiland and Bedard, the best option was to pitch Buchholz for 3 innings, and then see what happens. It would only make sense for a team with a top-heavy rotation and zero depth.

Buchholz was a starter. So you would have still had a starter to, you know, begin the game.

If you read rjortiz' initial post (i'm guessing you didn't) his suggestion is to ditch the starter altogether and to just pitch the entire bullpen.

[Palodios]

Buchholz was a starter. So you would have still had a starter to, you know, begin the game.

If you read rjortiz' initial post (i'm guessing you didn't) his suggestion is to ditch the starter altogether and to just pitch the entire bullpen.

I skimmed it. It isn't exactly what he is referring to, but it is a similar scenario.

[mvp 78]

The fifth guy in the pen usually has worse stuff than an average starter. That's the big flaw here.

[User Name?]

I skimmed it. It isn't exactly what he is referring to, but it is a similar scenario.

How similar is it? A starter, even on short rest, is still a starter. In that scenario you could conceivably have Buch give you five decent innings instead of having to rely on your entire bullpen from the beginning of a game.

[rjortiz]

Even in an elimination game, a starter on short rest is better than a relief pitcher who's likely to be overworked as well for multiple innings. There's just no logical way to defend such a move.

At most, a reliever would go two innings.

The logic is that you use your best pitchers to win a game. Why use an inferior pitcher and then ask him to give you five innings? Relievers tend to perform better than starters, and a team with an elite bullpen would guarantee that their best pitchers are being used. You say that "a starter on short rest is better than a relief pitcher......" What starter are you talking about? By that statement, one could assume that you mean that Nick Tepesch, starting the game, would prevent more runs than the Rangers bullpen. He is 12th in FIP among Rangers pitchers, which is behind seven Rangers relievers, eight if you count Feliz. If you look at that scenario, it looks logical enough to defend the reliever first strategy.

Two examples that come to mind are the Braves and the Rangers. In a one-game playoff they would most likely use Minor and Darvish respectively. I wouldn't have the balls to pull this off, but four Rangers relievers have better FIP numbers than Darvish. Frasor is .10 behind, and Feliz has been an elite arm when used out of the bullpen. Looking at the numbers, the Rangers bullpen have been better than Darvish when it comes to run prevention. You could start with your relievers, and if you are blowing out the opposing team, you could save Darvish for the ALDS to start two games, increasing your chances of winning that series. If the game is in the balance, you could still use Darvish for multiple innings. As mentioned before, I wouldn't have the balls to pull off that strategy, but there is some rationale behind it.

Looking at the Braves, they have five pitchers who are better in FIP than Minor, and two that are within .02. They're going to win the NL East, so the point is moot, but deploying an elite bullpen first allows your most effective pitchers to impact the game, potentially allows you to save your ace for five game series without an impact on run prevention, and for NL teams maximizes offensive output, because the pitcher wouldn't take an AB.

This strategy has been almost effectively used by some teams in elimination games. Starters are often quickly hooked in these situations, and then it's all hands on deck until the end. The 2011 ALDS between the Yankees and Tigers comes to mind. Nova lasted two innings, and then was yanked. The only difference between the two strategies is why wait to fall behind to use your better pitchers?

Again, I think this option should only be used by teams that have an elite bullpen that are faced with using an inferior starter. It certainly looks debatable that an elite bullpen would be as good at run prevention compared to some #1 starters, but no manager would ever think of using that strategy. Also, this option would only exist in elimination games. Using it too often would be a good way to disintegrate a bullpen.

[rjortiz]

Would you like to elaborate? I should also qualify that I mean in an elimination game.

Also, I shouldn't say all bullpen. A starter would obviously be needed toward the end of the game.


Buchholz was a starter. So you would have still had a starter to, you know, begin the game.

If you read rjortiz' initial post (i'm guessing you didn't) his suggestion is to ditch the starter altogether and to just pitch the entire bullpen.

That wasn't my suggestion. My suggestion was to start the game with the bullpen.

[User Name?]

Except that you'd be:

A) Taking a reliever out of his comfort zone.

B) Your whole premise is wrong, because after probably the first two guys in the 'pen, all of the other relievers are essentially guaranteed to have worse stuff than your worst starter even in an elite bullpen.

c) In an elimination game, with all hands on deck, you can pitch your starters who have the most rest, and are obviously better than the mid-bottom rung relievers of your roster.

D) You essentially force your specialists into one-inning situations.

E) It's just a terrible idea, because what happens if by miracle you don't get shitstomped and the game goes to extras, and then you have to warm up a .starter on short notice instead of piggybacking starters, which is the logical choice?

Straws are not good to grab on to.

[User Name?]

That wasn't my suggestion. My suggestion was to start the game with the bullpen.

Trying to pitch a starter out of the bullpen afterwards makes it an even more terrible idea.

[rjortiz]

The fifth guy in the pen usually has worse stuff than an average starter. That's the big flaw here.

The key word is "usually." In an elite bullpen it isn't uncommon to see every single reliever pitch better than an average starter. The 2012 Orioles immediately come to mind, as do this years Braves.

[User Name?]

You can't just extrapolate a reliever's one-inning stint performance to a starter's. That's ludicrous.

[sk7326]

The key word is "usually." In an elite bullpen it isn't uncommon to see every single reliever pitch better than an average starter. The 2012 Orioles immediately come to mind, as do this years Braves.

Neither of them do - their stuff plays up in short bursts ... like a starter would ... none of those dudes could turn a lineup over more than once. For the most part relievers are failed starters - born and bred relievers (hello, Craig Hansen) are even more limited than that.

The all bullpen approach also is very very high risk - if one reliever spits the bit, then you are starting to burn through pitchers very quickly, and do you carry 12 relievers for the occasion, some of those guys with horrid platoon splits? You probably want a starter for at least a little while.

[Palodios]

How similar is it? A starter, even on short rest, is still a starter. In that scenario you could conceivably have Buch give you five decent innings instead of having to rely on your entire bullpen from the beginning of a game.

If you want to be technical, then the scenario is simply impossible, even if the "starter" gets 0 outs because the pitcher who starts the game is the starters. If Buch was on a 40 pitch limit or something in that range, he'd simply be a long reliever being used for a few early innings in the game.

Another scenario from a few years ago.... Dice-k was scratched minutes before his start, and Atchison (who wasn't stretched out as a long man at the time) ended up starting the game, and the bullpen pitched the entire game. Not a playoff game obviously, but the Red Sox have done it before.

[User Name?]

If you want to be technical, then the scenario is simply impossible, even if the "starter" gets 0 outs because the pitcher who starts the game is the starters. If Buch was on a 40 pitch limit or something in that range, he'd simply be a long reliever being used for a few early innings in the game.

Another scenario from a few years ago.... Dice-k was scratched minutes before his start, and Atchison (who wasn't stretched out as a long man at the time) ended up starting the game, and the bullpen pitched the entire game. Not a playoff game obviously, but the Red Sox have done it before.

You just can't compare a regular season game to a playoff elimination game. They wouldn't begin the game with a starter on a 40-pitch limit. Why should they?

[rjortiz]

Except that you'd be:

A) Taking a reliever out of his comfort zone.

The only difference would be the inning they enter the game. There isn't any evidence to suggest that relievers are either successful or terrible in the proposed situation. Are relievers significantly worse when they pitch earlier in the game?


B) Your whole premise is wrong, because after probably the first two guys in the 'pen, all of the other relievers are essentially guaranteed to have worse stuff than your worst starter even in an elite bullpen.

Look at the Braves bullpen this year. Is it "essentially guaranteed" that Paul Maholm has better stuff than those pitchers in the bullpen?


c) In an elimination game, with all hands on deck, you can pitch your starters who have the most rest, and are obviously better than the mid-bottom rung relievers of your roster.

In some cases that starter is your 3rd or 4th best. Looking at some bullpens, every single one of their relievers has outperformed the bottom of the rotation. Again, not "obviously" better.


D) You essentially force your specialists into one-inning situations.

Starting the game with a bullpen would likely negate the other team's ability to stack a lineup. The Braves could have Kimbrel pitch two innings, and then use the other six pitchers to get 9-12 outs. That would reduce the probability of specialists being forced to pitch full innings.


E) It's just a terrible idea, because what happens if by miracle you don't get shitstomped and the game goes to extras, and then you have to warm up a .starter on short notice instead of piggybacking starters, which is the logical choice?

The Braves bullpen has a 2.34 ERA. Does having them pitch the first parts of the game dramatically increase those numbers to where you're getting crushed? What evidence are you basing this on?

I think it's preferable to go to extras having deployed your best pitchers, as opposed to losing the game without using them.


Straws are not good to grab on to.

Thinking in logical absolutes is not a good idea either.

[rjortiz]

You can't just extrapolate a reliever's one-inning stint performance to a starter's. That's ludicrous.

No one is doing that.

[rjortiz]

Neither of them do - their stuff plays up in short bursts ... like a starter would ... none of those dudes could turn a lineup over more than once. For the most part relievers are failed starters - born and bred relievers (hello, Craig Hansen) are even more limited than that.

Relievers are going to be going with max effort. A starter will not. The argument is whether starting the game with the bullpen is better than starting the game with a non-elite starting pitcher. No one is asking a reliever to turn over a lineup. I think we should be assuming that starters and relievers would pitch how they normally do.



The all bullpen approach also is very very high risk - if one reliever spits the bit, then you are starting to burn through pitchers very quickly, and do you carry 12 relievers for the occasion, some of those guys with horrid platoon splits? You probably want a starter for at least a little while.

The roster resets after the one game playoff. You could leave off starters that weren't going to pitch for you, or you could use them in relief roles. Either way, you are likely going to carry 12-13 pitchers for the one game. Running out of pitchers appears to be a remote possibility. Also, if it starts to be a problem, then you are either in the 18th inning, or you are getting blown out.

[User Name?]

The only difference would be the inning they enter the game. There isn't any evidence to suggest that relievers are either successful or terrible in the proposed situation. Are relievers significantly worse when they pitch earlier in the game?

You have enough anecdotal evidence about pitchers being "creatures of habit" (and that being why they have set roles) to think that it's more likely that's true than the other side of the coin. And why find out in an elimination game? That makes zero sense.



Look at the Braves bullpen this year. Is it "essentially guaranteed" that Paul Maholm has better stuff than those pitchers in the bullpen?

Paul Maholm wouldn't be starting an elimination game. Don't insult people's intelligence.


In some cases that starter is your 3rd or 4th best. Looking at some bullpens, every single one of their relievers has outperformed the bottom of the rotation. Again, not "obviously" better.


On short bursts in usually favorable situations. Apples to oranges, and "obviously" better. That's why they're starting games instead of relieving. Most of those "great" relievers are nothing more than failed starters.


Starting the game with a bullpen would likely negate the other team's ability to stack a lineup. The Braves could have Kimbrel pitch two innings, and then use the other six pitchers to get 9-12 outs. That would reduce the probability of specialists being forced to pitch full innings.

In the best case scenario. Because they're all going to get quick outs and pitch clean innings right? That's not how baseball works.




The Braves bullpen has a 2.34 ERA. Does having them pitch the first parts of the game dramatically increase those numbers to where you're getting crushed? What evidence are you basing this on?

What evidence are YOU basing the idea that they'd be able to hold on for basically an entire game, out of their regular usage pattern, in a playoff elimination game? None. You know why? No one has tried it because it's an idea that beats logic in the face with a baseball bat.



I think it's preferable to go to extras having deployed your best pitchers, as opposed to losing the game without using them.


Yeah, that's why you START your best available STARTER, who is your best available pitcher to START a game, instead of a relief pitcher.


Thinking in logical absolutes is not a good idea either.

It's better than batshit insanity.

[User Name?]

No one is doing that.

Except that that's exactly what you're doing.

[sk7326]

Relievers are going to be going with max effort. A starter will not. The argument is whether starting the game with the bullpen is better than starting the game with a non-elite starting pitcher. No one is asking a reliever to turn over a lineup. I think we should be assuming that starters and relievers would pitch how they normally do.



The roster resets after the one game playoff. You could leave off starters that weren't going to pitch for you, or you could use them in relief roles. Either way, you are likely going to carry 12-13 pitchers for the one game. Running out of pitchers appears to be a remote possibility. Also, if it starts to be a problem, then you are either in the 18th inning, or you are getting blown out.

The choice is between 12 or 13 pitchers - which includes mop up guys and matchup guys. You mentioned Baltimore's great bullpen - part of it was a guy like O'Day who absolutely cannot face left handers. So many relievers have horrible platoon splits (by design) and that is hard to design around. Also - in a 1-game playoff more position players seems like (especially in the NL) a much much more useful roster decision. Pinch runners, platoon hitters, pure defenders. Starting immediately with the bullpen almost ensures the team cannot handle a long game - look what happens every all star game.

[rjortiz]

You have enough anecdotal evidence about pitchers being "creatures of habit" (and that being why they have set roles) to think that it's more likely that's true than the other side of the coin. And why find out in an elimination game? That makes zero sense.

Sounds more like superstition than any qualitative analysis.



Paul Maholm wouldn't be starting an elimination game. Don't insult people's intelligence.

Ivan Nova started one for the Yankees. Joe Saunders pitched the one game playoff for the Orioles. Average/below average pitchers have been forced to make crucial starts before. It can certainly happen again. Also, we are going off your words:


Your whole premise is wrong, because after probably the first two guys in the 'pen, all of the other relievers are essentially guaranteed to have worse stuff than your worst starter even in an elite bullpen.

I think you meant to say my conclusion was wrong. I have multiple premises. Anyway, here you point out that other than the first two relievers, the others are essentially guaranteed to have worse stuff than your worst starter. Paul Maholm isn't the Braves worst starter, but I think my point has been made.




On short bursts in usually favorable situations. Apples to oranges, and "obviously" better. That's why they're starting games instead of relieving. Most of those "great" relievers are nothing more than failed starters.

I thought it was assumed that the bullpen is going to be deployed as it usually is. The only exception are the innings. That's the whole point of the argument.




In the best case scenario. Because they're all going to get quick outs and pitch clean innings right? That's not how baseball works.

Is there a point to bringing this up? This is pretty obvious. This could happen no matter what strategy was being used.





What evidence are YOU basing the idea that they'd be able to hold on for basically an entire game, out of their regular usage pattern, in a playoff elimination game? None. You know why?

The only change would be the inning they are being used.



It's better than batshit insanity.

Why are you so abrasive? We are simply having a discussion on a game. Instead you just make assertions, and either dismiss contrary points out of hand, or get angry if someone disagrees with you. I think I've lost count how often you dismiss another person's point of view as having "no logical explanation." Are you an expert logician?

I'm not advocating that you use outfielders instead of starters. I'm simply stating that you should give the most innings to your more effective pitchers. If your more effective pitchers are in the bullpen, then you should you use them in lieu of an inferior starter. That isn't "batshit insanity."

[rjortiz]

The choice is between 12 or 13 pitchers - which includes mop up guys and matchup guys. You mentioned Baltimore's great bullpen - part of it was a guy like O'Day who absolutely cannot face left handers. So many relievers have horrible platoon splits (by design) and that is hard to design around. Also - in a 1-game playoff more position players seems like (especially in the NL) a much much more useful roster decision. Pinch runners, platoon hitters, pure defenders. Starting immediately with the bullpen almost ensures the team cannot handle a long game - look what happens every all star game.

O'Day isn't the best example, because lefties had a .657 OPS against him in 2012, but I see your point.

The blueprint would be to ask your relief ace to get you six outs. Hopefully, you have a couple other relievers that can pitch to both sides of the plate. They get you six more. You could probably mix and match the rest of the way.

If it all goes horrible wrong, then you're going to have to use a long reliever/starter to get you to the finish. Although, I don't see how that's much different than using relievers for ineffective starters.

[rjortiz]

Except that that's exactly what you're doing.

Can you show me where I extrapolated a relievers performance? I'm assuming that multiple relievers will have to pitch to reach five or six innings. That's why I am saying they should use the entire bullpen. If I was extrapolating a reliever's performance, then I would be arguing that the Braves should just start Craig Kimbrel.

[User Name?]

The key word is "usually." In an elite bullpen it isn't uncommon to see every single reliever pitch better than an average starter. The 2012 Orioles immediately come to mind, as do this years Braves.

Right here you are trying to make a comparison (incorrect one by the way) between the work of "every single relief pitcher" to "an average starter". That is an apple to oranges comparison.

You can't take 40-50 IP of "being brought in to a situation where i can succeed" to around 160 IP of starter workload.

[User Name?]

And since we're in 2013 and no one has tried to open a playoff game (let alone an elimination one) with their closer of all pitchers, it's safe to say that there's something inherently wrong with your assumptions rjortiz.

A short-rested #2, #3 starter is a better bet to give you a decent performance than a juggling act with your entire bullpen.

Where's the logic in starting your bullpen arms out of their allotted roles and then your starter out of the BP (where some guys just can't get loose that quickly or easily) instead of in their regular roles?

This just seems like you're trying very hard to push an out-of-left-field idea with very little substance behind it.

[rjortiz]

Right here you are trying to make a comparison (incorrect one by the way) between the work of "every single relief pitcher" to "an average starter". That is an apple to oranges comparison.

You can't take 40-50 IP of "being brought in to a situation where i can succeed" to around 160 IP of starter workload.

Looking at the 2012 Orioles, they had 8 relievers with lower FIP numbers than Saunders. The Braves bullpen this year has 7 relievers with lower FIP numbers than Kris Medlen. Looking at those bullpens, you can safely say that every single one of their relievers had/have been more effective than an average starter.

The comparison can be made, because no one would ask a reliever to pitch in situations similar to a starter, nor would you ask the same from a starter. Relievers would still be brought in to situations where they can succeed. Remember what's being debated. Would a team be better off starting an elite bullpen over an average starter in an elimination game? This would have to assume that relievers are going to operate as they usually do, and a starter is going to operate as he usually does. The only exception would be the inning the relievers enter the game, and possibly the relief ace getting you 1-3 more outs.

I think there's some validity to the argument that relievers pitching out of their comfort zones might pitch worse, but I think with a little advanced preparation and the manager defining roles before the game, that would mitigate those concerns.

[rjortiz]

And since we're in 2013 and no one has tried to open a playoff game (let alone an elimination one) with their closer of all pitchers, it's safe to say that there's something inherently wrong with your assumptions rjortiz.

Because something hasn't been tried, doesn't make it wrong. I don't think it's drastically different than the all hands on deck strategy. The only difference is that you don't wait to fall behind before you use better options. I also think that any manager that tried this approach and it failed, would probably be fired immediately.


A short-rested #2, #3 starter is a better bet to give you a decent performance than a juggling act with your entire bullpen.

Not entire sure about that. For every Josh Beckett against the Yankees, there's a Tom Glavine performance.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/2935

Three days rest looks like a total crapshoot.


Where's the logic in starting your bullpen arms out of their allotted roles and then your starter out of the BP (where some guys just can't get loose that quickly or easily) instead of in their regular roles?

This just seems like you're trying very hard to push an out-of-left-field idea with very little substance behind it.

I'm not convinced that going with an average starter is a better option than going with an elite bullpen. The quick hook/use relief aces for longer stints is common in the postseason. I just don't think you should wait to fall behind before you start implementing that strategy.

I understand your reluctance to move pitchers out of their roles. Unless some team tries this approach, this argument is purely theoretical.

[Bellhorn04]

Oddly enough the Rays used all relievers in last night's game.

[sk7326]

O'Day isn't the best example, because lefties had a .657 OPS against him in 2012, but I see your point.

The blueprint would be to ask your relief ace to get you six outs. Hopefully, you have a couple other relievers that can pitch to both sides of the plate. They get you six more. You could probably mix and match the rest of the way.

If it all goes horrible wrong, then you're going to have to use a long reliever/starter to get you to the finish. Although, I don't see how that's much different than using relievers for ineffective starters.

What I get for not looking up O'Day's numbers and judging by a righty submariner. At the same time, you look at most bullpens, and a good chunk of the pitchers are there for specific matchups ... putting matchup guys in matchup neutral situations cuts into the FIP numbers cited. I don't mind the out of the box idea. But even if you are stuck with a mid rotation guy for a winner take all game, all hands are on deck anyway - and there is a solid chance the guy can get 4 innings or so out anyway. You look at all of these big games lately - generally the starting pitching has (even with lesser guys) been OK. I saw the Boston Red Sox win a do or die game with John Burkett in Yankee stadium.

[jung]

If the "discussion" is whether a Manager would ever start the game with a bullpen arm and continue with them throughout the course of the game as opposed to just starting the game with a starter on normal rest or even short rest I think it an impractical discussion.

A Manager is going to start his game with a Starter. He may make a judgement about whether to start his best on short rest or less than his best on regular rest but he is starting the game with a Starter. There is no guarantee what so ever that a top reliever is going to go out there and not lay an egg and all things being equal, the reliever going out to start the game has already been pitching in games and is not fully rested. In addition, in the biggest game your team is going to play all year, you are asking the relief pitcher to go out there and start. Do you actually think relief pitchers are born to be relief pitchers? Every pitcher ever born wants to start. The reason he is not starting is because he is not good enough. So now you expect a Manager to anoint one of those guys to start the biggest game of the year???? How is this hypothetical relief pitcher supposed to prepare for said start? How is he to control his emotions working up to the start? Never happened...never going to happen.

Nothing stops the Manager from having a very fast trigger finger on his hook if his starter does not perform. Who he brings in under those circumstances might be an interesting discussion. Does he use up what might be his only real fireman trying to get out of the early jam? Does he trust that somebody else can get him out of the jam saving his fireman for later? If I had to guess I would say the latter and not the former.

The original discussion if I understand it correctly is just a discussion with no basis because one of the alternatives offered is not an alternative at all. A Manager is never going to start one of these games with a relief pitcher if he has a rested starter available to him.

[sk7326]

If the "discussion" is whether a Manager would ever start the game with a bullpen arm and continue with them throughout the course of the game as opposed to just starting the game with a starter on normal rest or even short rest I think it an impractical discussion.

A Manager is going to start his game with a Starter. He may make a judgement about whether to start his best on short rest or less than his best on regular rest but he is starting the game with a Starter. There is no guarantee what so ever that a top reliever is going to go out there and not lay an egg and all things being equal, the reliever going out to start the game has already been pitching in games and is not fully rested. In addition, in the biggest game your team is going to play all year, you are asking the relief pitcher to go out there and start. Do you actually think relief pitchers are born to be relief pitchers? Every pitcher ever born wants to start. The reason he is not starting is because he is not good enough. So now you expect a Manager to anoint one of those guys to start the biggest game of the year???? How is this hypothetical relief pitcher supposed to prepare for said start? How is he to control his emotions working up to the start? Never happened...never going to happen.

Nothing stops the Manager from having a very fast trigger finger on his hook if his starter does not perform. Who he brings in under those circumstances might be an interesting discussion. Does he use up what might be his only real fireman trying to get out of the early jam? Does he trust that somebody else can get him out of the jam saving his fireman for later? If I had to guess I would say the latter and not the former.

The original discussion if I understand it correctly is just a discussion with no basis because one of the alternatives offered is not an alternative at all. A Manager is never going to start one of these games with a relief pitcher if he has a rested starter available to him.

Pretty much. And in a single elimination the quick hook is already there. After all, Tito put Foulke in in the 7th of some of those big Yankees starts and in that Game 7 I remember Torre going to Rivera very early. You don't have time to mess around - as it should be. In the situation you outlined, I'd think you want to get the out with your best guy and then (depending on workload) ride him out or go to a swing starter.

[rjortiz]

If the "discussion" is whether a Manager would ever start the game with a bullpen arm and continue with them throughout the course of the game as opposed to just starting the game with a starter on normal rest or even short rest I think it an impractical discussion.

A Manager is going to start his game with a Starter. He may make a judgement about whether to start his best on short rest or less than his best on regular rest but he is starting the game with a Starter. There is no guarantee what so ever that a top reliever is going to go out there and not lay an egg and all things being equal, the reliever going out to start the game has already been pitching in games and is not fully rested. In addition, in the biggest game your team is going to play all year, you are asking the relief pitcher to go out there and start. Do you actually think relief pitchers are born to be relief pitchers? Every pitcher ever born wants to start. The reason he is not starting is because he is not good enough. So now you expect a Manager to anoint one of those guys to start the biggest game of the year???? How is this hypothetical relief pitcher supposed to prepare for said start? How is he to control his emotions working up to the start? Never happened...never going to happen.

Nothing stops the Manager from having a very fast trigger finger on his hook if his starter does not perform. Who he brings in under those circumstances might be an interesting discussion. Does he use up what might be his only real fireman trying to get out of the early jam? Does he trust that somebody else can get him out of the jam saving his fireman for later? If I had to guess I would say the latter and not the former.

The original discussion if I understand it correctly is just a discussion with no basis because one of the alternatives offered is not an alternative at all. A Manager is never going to start one of these games with a relief pitcher if he has a rested starter available to him.

We weren't discussing if a manager would implement the strategy, we were discussing if the strategy would work better than using an average starter. There's already consensus about whether a manager would actually use it.

I notice you base your arguments on feelings and emotions. Why should we assume that a relief ace would implode because he started the game? They already pitch in much higher leveraged innings. Why wouldn't they be able to handle throwing two innings at the start of the game?

[sk7326]

We weren't discussing if a manager would implement the strategy, we were discussing if the strategy would work better than using an average starter. There's already consensus about whether a manager would actually use it.

I notice you base your arguments on feelings and emotions. Why should we assume that a relief ace would implode because he started the game? They already pitch in much higher leveraged innings. Why wouldn't they be able to handle throwing two innings at the start of the game?

OK, this is interesting ... how about we clarify the argument.

Let's say a normal team carries between 10 and 12 pitchers ... 5 of them are starters ... so that gets you down to 5-7 relievers. Are we focusing on the latter 5-7 pitchers? That would be 5-7 pitchers for 9 innings or more of work which is well beyond what most of them are stretched for. So that means going to 10 relievers? That's adding 3 of the De La Rosa-Villerael-Alex Wilson-De La Torre pu pu platter?

Now if we are talking about a normal staff with all-star sort of rules - that is a little better, but we know one of the starters has to be held for Game 1 ... and probably would be too tired to pitch anyway (one expects the wild card teams will be too busy chasing to set their rotation). So 4 starters and 7 relievers. There is enough coverage here for a game, but the question of wasting resources and exposing inferior pitchers still lies. I don't think Koji would implode starting and getting 6 outs ... it's the 3-6 outs that Craig Breslow or Matt Thornton have to get that become dicey.

Would I be - in a 1-game elimination - willing to pitch Koji in the 4th if the situation dictates? No doubt - but that is another issue.

[rjortiz]

OK, this is interesting ... how about we clarify the argument.

Let's say a normal team carries between 10 and 12 pitchers ... 5 of them are starters ... so that gets you down to 5-7 relievers. Are we focusing on the latter 5-7 pitchers? That would be 5-7 pitchers for 9 innings or more of work which is well beyond what most of them are stretched for. So that means going to 10 relievers? That's adding 3 of the De La Rosa-Villerael-Alex Wilson-De La Torre pu pu platter?

Now if we are talking about a normal staff with all-star sort of rules - that is a little better, but we know one of the starters has to be held for Game 1 ... and probably would be too tired to pitch anyway (one expects the wild card teams will be too busy chasing to set their rotation). So 4 starters and 7 relievers. There is enough coverage here for a game, but the question of wasting resources and exposing inferior pitchers still lies. I don't think Koji would implode starting and getting 6 outs ... it's the 3-6 outs that Craig Breslow or Matt Thornton have to get that become dicey.

Would I be - in a 1-game elimination - willing to pitch Koji in the 4th if the situation dictates? No doubt - but that is another issue.

I wouldn't use this strategy if I were the Red Sox. The rotation is better than the bullpen.

[Bellhorn04]

I wouldn't use this strategy if I were the Red Sox. The rotation is better than the bullpen.

In most cases, no matter how good your bullpen, in a single game you can't expect to cover more than 5 innings with top quality relievers. That's the basic problem this idea runs into.

[sk7326]

I wouldn't use this strategy if I were the Red Sox. The rotation is better than the bullpen.

I don't know many (if any) teams where the bullpen contains better pitchers than the rotation. The bullpen can have better results than the rotation based on how a manger deploys them and not having their (lack of) third pitch exposed. But making a 1-for-1 swap of pitchers, aside from the odd Craig Kimbrel or Aroldys Chapman, I am not sure there are any short guys who actually ARE better than a comparable starter. After all, I remember Tom Gordon one year being a very average starter for Boston and then turning into a knockout reliever - same guy, just meant he could throw harder and his third pitch did not matter.

The bullpen-primary plan I think also gives teams (even Baltimore 2012 - and a lot of those guys are still the same) too much credit for having enough MLB playoff-roster level arms to actually do this in a way that does not have fans trembling in fear.

BTW: This does not mean that "starter -> quick hook and throw pitchers at the rest of the game" is not a valid way to do things - heck, that's what all these teams will do, regardless of how good the starter is"

[a700hitter]

Skanks are only 3 games back in the loss column for a Wild Card slot.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Skanks are only 3 games back in the loss column for a Wild Card slot.

Please, please, PLEASE let the Yankees win the WC.

I would LOVE for the Yankees to win the WC over the Rays. Then, on the off chance that Kuroda beats Darvish, then you've got CC and Pettitte going in the first 2 games of the ALDS.

Give me that matchup over the Rays Moore and Cobb 100 times out of 100.

[mvp 78]

Please, please, PLEASE let the Yankees win the WC.

I would LOVE for the Yankees to win the WC over the Rays. Then, on the off chance that Kuroda beats Darvish, then you've got CC and Pettitte going in the first 2 games of the ALDS.

Give me that matchup over the Rays Moore and Cobb 100 times out of 100.

Yup, I'd be much more scared of a Rays, O's, Indians, Royals or A's/Rangers matchup at this point.

[rjortiz]

I don't know many (if any) teams where the bullpen contains better pitchers than the rotation. The bullpen can have better results than the rotation based on how a manger deploys them and not having their (lack of) third pitch exposed. But making a 1-for-1 swap of pitchers, aside from the odd Craig Kimbrel or Aroldys Chapman, I am not sure there are any short guys who actually ARE better than a comparable starter. After all, I remember Tom Gordon one year being a very average starter for Boston and then turning into a knockout reliever - same guy, just meant he could throw harder and his third pitch did not matter.

The bullpen-primary plan I think also gives teams (even Baltimore 2012 - and a lot of those guys are still the same) too much credit for having enough MLB playoff-roster level arms to actually do this in a way that does not have fans trembling in fear.

BTW: This does not mean that "starter -> quick hook and throw pitchers at the rest of the game" is not a valid way to do things - heck, that's what all these teams will do, regardless of how good the starter is"


Just to make sure we're on the same page, you know that I'm not claiming that it would be a 1-for-1 swap? At most, Kimbrel/relief ace would go 2 innings.

[rjortiz]

Looking closer at the 2012 Orioles, these are the FIP numbers of ten of their relievers: 1.89, 2.32, 2.79, 2.96, 3.25, 3.26, 3.45, 3.48, 3.59, 3.67. These are the ERA numbers: 1.10, 1.35, 2.28, 2.31, 2.43, 2.44, 2.49, 2.64, 2.79, 3.71. They went with Saunders who had a nearly identical FIP/ERA at 4.07 and 4.08. They did wind up winning, but I think this shows when the bullpen first strategy could be deployed.

[rjortiz]

Yup, I'd be much more scared of a Rays, O's, Indians, Royals or A's/Rangers matchup at this point.

The Yankees aren't the same team they were earlier in the year. Rodriguez, Jeter, Soriano, and Granderson are upgrades over what they had a couple months ago. Those four probably bring them from truly awful to below average. I don't agree with the opinion, but apparently you only need three good relievers and three starters. They have the relievers, and Kuroda, Nova, and Pettitte isn't an awful front three. I think they are a slighly above average team. They probably need too much help to win the WC, but I would definitely prefer to face the Royals. Shields is good, but they might score three runs at most jn a five game series.

[sk7326]

The Orioles bullpen did very well last season - and a lot less well this season with a lot of the same characters. I am not going to pooh pooh relief ERA, but there is a lot of small sample size at work there. (as there is in relief ERA generally)

Since we are diving into the xFIP numbers for the 2012 Orioles. At least among their middle relief guys:

Troy Patton had a large xFIP platoon split (2.96/3.90)
Luis Ayala did too (3.62/4.45)
O'Day's are not small either (3.19/4.09) - although his career BABIPs are such that it seems like he has enough of a skill that xFIP undervalues him
Strop was a reverse one with righties 3.88 vs 2.92

They were excellent last season - but there was a good amount of luck involved (the xFIP gap vs the ERAs). The relievers often had significant splits too - which makes it hard for Showalter to deploy them in the sort of specific way that good managers can use relievers late in games. Assuming you carry 10-12 relievers (sort of the minimum here - considering their top bullpen guys all were in the ballpark of 1 inning per outing or less - that is not a lot of room to operate if something goes wrong, without some of the factors relievers have working in their favor.

[User Name?]

Looking closer at the 2012 Orioles, these are the FIP numbers of ten of their relievers: 1.89, 2.32, 2.79, 2.96, 3.25, 3.26, 3.45, 3.48, 3.59, 3.67. These are the ERA numbers: 1.10, 1.35, 2.28, 2.31, 2.43, 2.44, 2.49, 2.64, 2.79, 3.71. They went with Saunders who had a nearly identical FIP/ERA at 4.07 and 4.08. They did wind up winning, but I think this shows when the bullpen first strategy could be deployed.

No it doesn't, because it still presents the fundamental flaw of overextending relievers, bringing them into unfamiliar situations, and the fact that a group of relievers will never be a better bet to start a game than a league-average starter.

[rjortiz]

No it doesn't, because it still presents the fundamental flaw of overextending relievers, bringing them into unfamiliar situations, and the fact that a group of relievers will never be a better bet to start a game than a league-average starter.

Those are all valid objections, but arguing in absolutes, when the strategy has never been implemented is a little rash.

At some point, this argument started to go in a circle. I think all that needs to be said has been said. The idea isn't mine, it has some traction in the sabermetric community. Maybe some statistically inclined organization will try it one day When that happens, then we can draw conclusions about its usefulness. Right now, it looks like the same arguments are being rehashed, but in slightly different ways.

[Orange Juiced]

Another day, no change in the AL East race. That's a good thing.

[SoxFanForsyth]

At this point, the Rays have their backs pretty well against the wall.

The Red Sox have 22 games left, the Rays 25. And the Rays have to lose 4 fewer than the Red Sox to force a 1 game playoff for the division.

In essence, if the Red Sox go 11-11 in their final 22, the Rays would have to go 18-7 (.720 baseball) to tie the Red Sox. Even if the Sox go 10-12 in their final 22, the Rays would still have to go 17-8 (.680) to tie it up.

Not at all saying it's over, and not at all saying the Rays can't make up that ground, just saying they've dug themselves a pretty tough hole to get out of.

[User Name?]

Those are all valid objections, but arguing in absolutes, when the strategy has never been implemented is a little rash.

At some point, this argument started to go in a circle. I think all that needs to be said has been said. The idea isn't mine, it has some traction in the sabermetric community. Maybe some statistically inclined organization will try it one day When that happens, then we can draw conclusions about its usefulness. Right now, it looks like the same arguments are being rehashed, but in slightly different ways.

Can you show me some evidence of this? I'm an avid reader of baseball analysis and i've never seen such an idea lobbied for before.

[Orange Juiced]

At this point, the Rays have their backs pretty well against the wall.

The Red Sox have 22 games left, the Rays 25. And the Rays have to lose 4 fewer than the Red Sox to force a 1 game playoff for the division.

In essence, if the Red Sox go 11-11 in their final 22, the Rays would have to go 18-7 (.720 baseball) to tie the Red Sox. Even if the Sox go 10-12 in their final 22, the Rays would still have to go 17-8 (.680) to tie it up.

Not at all saying it's over, and not at all saying the Rays can't make up that ground, just saying they've dug themselves a pretty tough hole to get out of.

Yep. That's why every day that goes by with the standings remaining the same is a good day for the Sox.

[sk7326]

Can you show me some evidence of this? I'm an avid reader of baseball analysis and i've never seen such an idea lobbied for before.

Fangraphs mused about this http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/play-in-game-strategy-skip-the-starter/

[sk7326]

At this point, the Rays have their backs pretty well against the wall.

The Red Sox have 22 games left, the Rays 25. And the Rays have to lose 4 fewer than the Red Sox to force a 1 game playoff for the division.

In essence, if the Red Sox go 11-11 in their final 22, the Rays would have to go 18-7 (.720 baseball) to tie the Red Sox. Even if the Sox go 10-12 in their final 22, the Rays would still have to go 17-8 (.680) to tie it up.

Not at all saying it's over, and not at all saying the Rays can't make up that ground, just saying they've dug themselves a pretty tough hole to get out of.

If the Red Sox can manage to win 1 game in the final head to head series with Tampa, they will be out of our hair for the division. Frankly Tampa is closer to being knocked out at this point.

[SoxFanForsyth]

If the Red Sox can manage to win 1 game in the final head to head series with Tampa, they will be out of our hair for the division. Frankly Tampa is closer to being knocked out at this point.

Looks like it's going to be Hellickson v Buchholz, Price v Peavy, and Cobb v Doubront.

I actually really like the Sox chances to take 2/3 there.

[rjortiz]

Fangraphs mused about this http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/play-in-game-strategy-skip-the-starter/

That's the article. Cameron is pretty sharp. He's definitely my favorite baseball writer. He's a welcome change from the melodrama that oozes out of Dan Shaughnessy, or the "I don't get it, so I'll just bash it," Jason Whitlock.

[SoxFanForsyth]

That's the article. Cameron is pretty sharp. He's definitely my favorite baseball writer. He's a welcome change from the melodrama that oozes out of Dan Shaughnessy, or the "I don't get it, so I'll just bash it," Jason Whitlock.

I met Dave at the FG meet and greet a couple weeks ago. Really, really nice guy. I got there early and got to shoot the shit with him for about 20 minutes before everyone else showed up. Really cool experience.

[rjortiz]

Looks like it's going to be Hellickson v Buchholz, Price v Peavy, and Cobb v Doubront.

I actually really like the Sox chances to take 2/3 there.

I doubt that Hellickson makes that start. They can and should skip him.

[jung]

Well looking at the proposed schedule for post season play including play-in games, MLB has managed to make a total farce of what was already something of one to begin with.

We all knew this whole idea that the two WC team format with play in was a fallacy and now MLB has proved it. The way the schedule has been designed an AL WC team will be able to use their #1 rotation guy in the play in game AND use him in the first game of the Division series. So much for making winning the division mean something.

It also looks like most if not the entire League Championship Series will be alternating days AL and NL making it more likely that we will see a top rotation guy pitch game 1 and game 4.

MLB IMO had a perfect system or as close to perfect as it was going to get in the 1 WC system. Now it has a mess. At best if it insists on continuing the two WC system it has to find a way to fit a three game series in. As it stands now they are actually doing themselves more damage than good. Why should casual fans care about the 162? No reason in the world. They have turned the 162, long considered sacrosanct in baseball into ....yup you guessed it...a farce.

No wonder ratings and attendance are down across baseball. Catering to the Networks only works if the Networks know what the fuck they are doing long term with regard to baseball. What Network would care about baseball farther out than the length of its contract with baseball? Answer....none.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Well looking at the proposed schedule for post season play including play-in games, MLB has managed to make a total farce of what was already something of one to begin with.

We all knew this whole idea that the two WC team format with play in was a fallacy and now MLB has proved it. The way the schedule has been designed an AL WC team will be able to use their #1 rotation guy in the play in game AND use him in the first game of the Division series. So much for making winning the division mean something.

It also looks like most if not the entire League Championship Series will be alternating days AL and NL making it more likely that we will see a top rotation guy pitch game 1 and game 4.

MLB IMO had a perfect system or as close to perfect as it was going to get in the 1 WC system. Now it has a mess. At best if it insists on continuing the two WC system it has to find a way to fit a three game series in. As it stands now they are actually doing themselves more damage than good. Why should casual fans care about the 162? No reason in the world. They have turned the 162, long considered sacrosanct in baseball into ....yup you guessed it...a farce.

No wonder ratings and attendance are down across baseball. Catering to the Networks only works if the Networks know what the fuck they are doing long term with regard to baseball. What Network would care about baseball farther out than the length of its contract with baseball? Answer....none.

Not sure where you're coming from here jung.

The AL WC Play In Game is on Tuesday, 10/2. Game 1 of the ALDS is Friday, 10/5. That would give the ace 2 days of rest, and nobody would start their ace on 2 days of rest.

In fact, the schedule for the ALDS goes 10/4, 10/5, 10/7, 10/8, and 10/10. If a team pitches their ace in the play-in game, they would not be able to pitch him twice in the ALDS without going on short rest at least once (10/2-10/5 is 3 days rest, and 10/7-10/10 is 3 days rest).

The only complaint I can see is that your ace can pitch in game 162 and then open the ALDS if you make it, which is really not a huge deal IMO.

The ALCS is no different than any other year. 2-3-2 with a travel day on either side of the 3 gamer. 10/12, 10/13, 10/15, 10/16, 10/17, 10/19, 10/20.

So I'm not quite sure where you're going with this stuff?

Here's the link to the schedule. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/schedule/ps.jsp?tcid=mm_mlb_schedule

[sk7326]

Schedule is here: http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130903&content_id=59414608&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

TBS covers Wild Card and Division Series - NLCS. FOX does ALCS.

NL Wild Card is October 1 - those division series start October 3 ... so 2 day turnaround
AL Wild Card is October 2, ALDS start October 4 ... 2 day turnaround.

It's still a pretty tight turn.

NLDS A and B: October 3, 4, 6, 7, 9 ... the travel day between Games 4 and 5 is new
ALDS A and B: October 4, 5, 7, 8, 10

NLCS: October 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 ... remember in 2004 we had the rainout before Game 3 which eliminated that Game 5/6 travel day
ALCS: October 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20

WORLD SERIES: October 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 31

The 3-day break minimum before the World Series is a bit long. But at the same time, baseball did not alter its schedule to avoid Sunday Night Football so go figure.

[sk7326]

Not sure where you're coming from here jung.

The AL WC Play In Game is on Tuesday, 10/2. Game 1 of the ALDS is Friday, 10/5. That would give the ace 2 days of rest, and nobody would start their ace on 2 days of rest.

In fact, the schedule for the ALDS goes 10/4, 10/5, 10/7, 10/8, and 10/10. If a team pitches their ace in the play-in game, they would not be able to pitch him twice in the ALDS without going on short rest at least once (10/2-10/5 is 3 days rest, and 10/7-10/10 is 3 days rest).

The only complaint I can see is that your ace can pitch in game 162 and then open the ALDS if you make it, which is really not a huge deal IMO.

The ALCS is no different than any other year. 2-3-2 with a travel day on either side of the 3 gamer. 10/12, 10/13, 10/15, 10/16, 10/17, 10/19, 10/20.

So I'm not quite sure where you're going with this stuff?

Here's the link to the schedule. http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/schedule/ps.jsp?tcid=mm_mlb_schedule

Oops - what I get for typing while you sent this :)

[Bellhorn04]

The Red Sox have 11 players with at least 200 PA's.

Of the 11, 9 of them have an OPS of .775 or higher.

The 2 that don't are Gomes at .751 and WMB at .703.

That is some fantastic depth and balance on offence.

[User Name?]

On the pitching side, every starter sans Dempster has an ERA under 4.00, and their top 3 relievers all have ERA's under 3.00, ERA+ over 150, and WHIP under 1.20.

Lots of balance.

[Orange Juiced]

The Red Sox have 11 players with at least 200 PA's.

Of the 11, 9 of them have an OPS of .775 or higher.

The 2 that don't are Gomes at .751 and WMB at .703.

That is some fantastic depth and balance on offence.

And WMB's numbers are really night-and-day since his recall:

Apr 1 - Jun 20: .192/.228/.389/.617
Aug 10 - Sep 4: .343/.413/.529/.941

So he's been a totally different player since he came back to Boston. I don't expect a .941 ops from him the rest of the way, but he's looking much more like an .800 ops guy than a .700 ops guy.

[rjortiz]

And WMB's numbers are really night-and-day since his recall:

Apr 1 - Jun 20: .192/.228/.389/.617
Aug 10 - Sep 4: .343/.413/.529/.941

So he's been a totally different player since he came back to Boston. I don't expect a .941 ops from him the rest of the way, but he's looking much more like an .800 ops guy than a .700 ops guy.

I think he's going to fall to earth, (.405 BABIP in August, .444 in September) but can't argue with past success, even if it was lucky.

[sk7326]

I think he's going to fall to earth, (.405 BABIP in August, .444 in September) but can't argue with past success, even if it was lucky.

The BABIP will fall - but the walk rate is very encouraging ... he's not going to be Youk, but he is not hopelessly flailing away either. Even if he falls back to your expected BABIP - this is a guy we can live with as a 3B.

[jung]

Myself I would prefer better defense on the left side if XB is going to be the SS alongside WMB, I am not convinced they will hit so good as a pair that it will offset the defensive weakness they will create on the left side. I would prefer to see WMB continue on the path as a power hitter that he was on and move over to 1st, have XB at 3rd and a competent SS, at least in the sense of what the Sox consider to be a competent SS.

I just do not know what WMB did in the minors to convince people he had the potential to be a solid defensive 3rd baseman. I just don't see it. However I think XB will be able to hold his own at 3rd while being subpar at SS.

[Bellhorn04]

Myself I would prefer better defense on the left side if XB is going to be the SS alongside WMB, I am not convinced they will hit so good as a pair that it will offset the defensive weakness they will create on the left side. I would prefer to see WMB continue on the path as a power hitter that he was on and move over to 1st, have XB at 3rd and a competent SS, at least in the sense of what the Sox consider to be a competent SS.


Drew has been very competent. His WAR of 2.7 is 10th among ML SS's. He's also been, dare I say it, CLUTCH.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I think he's going to fall to earth, (.405 BABIP in August, .444 in September) but can't argue with past success, even if it was lucky.

Yeah, but his overall BABIP this year is still just .274, so on the season he's still had a few less balls fall than he should have. Plus, he had a 23% LD% in August, which is the main reason his BABIP skyrocketed.

He's not going to continue to hit .350 the rest of the season (or maybe he will, it's only 20 games), but regardless, I would guess that his line next year will be more around .265/.320/.475.

[Orange Juiced]

I think he's going to fall to earth, (.405 BABIP in August, .444 in September) but can't argue with past success, even if it was lucky.

The thing about WMB, as compared to Iglesias, is that even when he was going bad, WMB could run into a pitch and drive it out. Even before he was sent down, even though he wasn't getting on base at all, he still had 9 homers. Now that he's getting on base, he's being incredibly productive.

Of course I expect him to slow down, but he's still a huge offensive lift from Iglesias.

[Orange Juiced]

Yeah, but his overall BABIP this year is still just .274, so on the season he's still had a few less balls fall than he should have. Plus, he had a 23% LD% in August, which is the main reason his BABIP skyrocketed.

He's not going to continue to hit .350 the rest of the season (or maybe he will, it's only 20 games), but regardless, I would guess that his line next year will be more around .265/.320/.475.

If Middlebrooks, during his age 25 season, puts up an .800 ops with 25 homers and 80 rbi, while playing above-average defense at 3b, at the cost of a minimum MLB salary, we should all say a prayer of thanks.

And don't get me wrong - I think he's totally capable of that, which is why he's potentially incredibly valuable to this team.

[jung]

WMB is capable of everything but the above average defense. He just does not have it and he is back to using that weak assed throw AGAIN. Thought they broke him of that earlier this season but NOT.

[jung]

I want to see some of these players get some rest before this gets out of hand. Pedey has not taken a real break of any kind all season and it has finally started to show. He is running on adrenaline at this point which is actually more threatening to his health. I don't want to see any of them take so many days that they get out of sync but Pedey needs rest for sure....made that lazy play last night on the DP...something we never see him do. Vic needs rest...could not even stay out there long enough for a Dell interview last night and blew her off on the way past to the locker room and undoubtedly the training table.

Taz is very close to a shot load for the second time this season. Pitchers can recover once in a season...twice is asking a lot. Unfortunately I think if Taz can't go Farrell is going to lean harder on Ueh which could actually turn out to be disastrous for the Sox. The problem with overtaxing Ueh in what is soon becoming games that just don't mean very much is that without Ueh, this team is done...toast...adios amigos. You can't risk Ueh in single games at this point this far up in the standings. I would now begin to be less inclined to use Ueh for even four outs but I might still in the right situation. I would not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES use him for more than four outs and I would not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES bring him into tie games in the 9th on the road.

[Behindenemylines]

I want to see some of these players get some rest before this gets out of hand. Pedey has not taken a real break of any kind all season and it has finally started to show. He is running on adrenaline at this point which is actually more threatening to his health. I don't want to see any of them take so many days that they get out of sync but Pedey needs rest for sure....made that lazy play last night on the DP...something we never see him do. Vic needs rest...could not even stay out there long enough for a Dell interview last night and blew her off on the way past to the locker room and undoubtedly the training table.

Taz is very close to a shot load for the second time this season. Pitchers can recover once in a season...twice is asking a lot. Unfortunately I think if Taz can't go Farrell is going to lean harder on Ueh which could actually turn out to be disastrous for the Sox. The problem with overtaxing Ueh in what is soon becoming games that just don't mean very much is that without Ueh, this team is done...toast...adios amigos. You can't risk Ueh in single games at this point this far up in the standings. I would now begin to be less inclined to use Ueh for even four outs but I might still in the right situation. I would not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES use him for more than four outs and I would not UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES bring him into tie games in the 9th on the road.

Hopefully, with the lead up to 7 1/2 games the Sox will be able to rest some of their starters down the stretch. Even though Farrell has rested some players that have had nagging injuries. He has done this with Napoli, Ellsbury and Salty lately. He has also pulled guys late in games to give them some rest.

[Thunder]

At this point, I would only give Clay 2 starts and then rest him for the playoffs, assuming he does well.

[BSN07]

At this point, I would only give Clay 2 starts and then rest him for the playoffs, assuming he does well.

It be a bad idea to ramp him up and then rest him again. He needs work before the playoffs. If he is healthy he needs to be going every 5th day right into the playoffs imo.

[Jasonbay44]

It be a bad idea to ramp him up and then rest him again. He needs work before the playoffs. If he is healthy he needs to be going every 5th day right into the playoffs imo.
100% agree. Buchholz is one guy I wouldn't worry about resting, he needs the work.

[Thunder]

I just think he's too valuable.

[SoxFanForsyth]

If the Sox go 9-9 to finish the season, the Rays would have to go 19-3 to tie it up.

If the Yankees win out, they will finish with 95 wins. If the Red Sox play .500 baseball, they will win 96 games.

This makes me smile.

[Thunder]

If the Sox go 9-9 to finish the season, the Rays would have to go 19-3 to tie it up.

If the Yankees win out, they will finish with 95 wins. If the Red Sox play .500 baseball, they will win 96 games.

This makes me smile.

I can guarantee you the Yankees won't win out. We have 4 more with them.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I can guarantee you the Yankees won't win out. We have 4 more with them.

I know they won't. The point of that was to show that the best the Yankees could do would be 1 game short of the Red Sox playing .500 baseball.

[Thunder]

Orioles walk off in 10th, gain a game on the Skanks. Indians play the Mets, should be a win.

[SoxSport]

I think it's important Farrell continues to platoon these guys--playing on their depth. Bradley adds to their depth in the OF, so Ellsbury will not be missed as badly. Where is Carp? Must be hurt. Nap is hot in September, but needs a breather against a tough righty. Buchholz could have a big impact approaching the playoffs. I see Lackey has to give up 7 runs to get a win. Go figure.

I wouldn't give up on starting Doubront yet, but I think Dempster's experience closing should be utilized to help out Koji and Tazawa.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I think it's important Farrell continues to platoon these guys--playing on their depth. Bradley adds to their depth in the OF, so Ellsbury will not be missed as badly. Where is Carp? Must be hurt. Nap is hot in September, but needs a breather against a tough righty. Buchholz could have a big impact approaching the playoffs. I see Lackey has to give up 7 runs to get a win. Go figure.

I wouldn't give up on starting Doubront yet, but I think Dempster's experience closing should be utilized to help out Koji and Tazawa.

I wouldn't even talk to Napoli right now, much less take him out of the lineup. That guy is as hot as they come. And he is historically good in September.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Sox have the biggest divisional lead in the AL.

And the best record in the AL by 3.5 games.

[Thunder]

Indians already have a 2-0 lead in the first, still no one out. I'm watching on the Mets network.

[Behindenemylines]

The Sox winning the first three games against the $pankees has helped both the O's and the Indians as they both have passed them in the wild card standings. Baltimore has four at home against the $panks next week, and the Indians are done with the Tigers and have 15 of their remaining 21 games against teams who are out of the playoff chase. Besides the Sox clinching the AL East, the elimination of the $pankees would be great.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Not sure what thread it was, but Forsyth hit the nail right on the head with the Rays. He said once they went on the west coast trip, they'd start to suck it up. They sure are big time.Last road trip out west, they won zero games. On this road trip, they are 3-10 and could be 3-11 if they lose tonight. They are currently losing 3-0 right now to the Mariners. This division lead is about to get real comfortable.

[Emmz]

It's never really "in the bag" until the Rays and Yanks are mathematically eliminated, but realistically the race right now is for 2nd place. The Sox have been playing their best lately, and at the right time. They've won a lot of tough games and they look nothing like the 2011 team did going through September.

I think they got the division, and I think they've gotta be the favs to win the WS at this point. Very solid rotation that's only going to get better when Buch's back, the bullpen usually has it under control, and Koji shuts it down every time he goes out. Mike Napoli is looking like he's one of the best hitters in baseball again, and when he gets hot, he usually doesn't cool off until the season's over. Could easily see him having a monster postseason like he did with Texas a few years ago.

[Emmz]

Also

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/23516472/koji-uehara-completes-hidden-perfect-game-on-friday-night

Don't know if anyone posted this. Sick.

[jung]

It amazes me no end how much attention the start of the pro football season now gets in this town right in the middle of what has got to be considered one of the watershed and most entertaining seasons in Red Sox history.

I played both games on an organized basis at least through high school and while telling a teenage boy that he is going to be able to go out and hit people as hard as he can every day for a couple months has an appeal all its own at that age, baseball IMO is so much a better game. It is even a better TV game if MLB in its various monied constituencies, owners, PA and Networks had not fucked it up so much.

You don't see what matters watching football on TV. By the time the QB either hands the ball off or throws the ball, the play has already happened. Yet unless you know what to look for and are fortunate in what the damned camera is following, your chances of seeing it are slim to none. In baseball at least you get to see the pitcher throwing to the catcher with the batter in the box. While I would love a positional shot of the fielders more often than baseball provides it, you get to see the relationship between the pitcher and hitter, the most important relationship to the outcome of every single play or pitch. On top of that, the cameras are quick enough to at least get you to where the fielder is going to make his play and what he is going to do from there. Only the three groups in combination, owners, PA and Networks could have fucked up something so beautiful to the point now where there are serious discussions that pro football is now the "national pastime". I could just scream!

[mvp 78]

Howie Long said it best: "baseball is America's past time. Football is its passion."

[VA Sox Fan]

Down the stretch come the Red Sox

Posted by Peter Abraham, Globe Staff September 9, 2013 11:48 AM


TAMPA, Fla. — The Red Sox (87-58) have a 7.5 game lead on the Tampa Bay Rays (78-64) in the American League East. The third-place Baltimore Orioles (76-66) are 9.5 games out.

According to Cool Standings the Red Sox have a 99-percent chance of winning the division.

But until the Red Sox are soaking their beards in champagne, perhaps it would be worth examining the pennant race. After all, Cool Standings said the Sox had a 93.1 percent chance of making the playoffs after 145 games in 2011.

Theme song for the Sox right now? "Ninety-Nine And A Half (Won't Do)." The Wilson Pickett version is quite excellent.

The schedule: The Sox have 17 games left. After three games at Tampa Bay, they have a nine-game homestand against the Yankees, Orioles and Blue Jays. Then they end the season with two games at Colorado and three at Baltimore.

The opposition: Tampa Bay has a brutal schedule. The Rays are off today after a 3-7 West Coast trip. After three games against the Red Sox they go back on the road for three games at Minnesota before returning home for four games against Texas and three against Baltimore. Then they finish on the road against the Yankees and Blue Jays.

The advantage: Starting Tuesday the Red Sox have 17 games in 20 days. Starting Tuesday the Rays have 20 games in 20 days.

The issue: The loss of Jacoby Ellsbury will certainly affect the Sox. He's one of the best players in the game; their lineup is not the same without him. But his absence shouldn't lead to a collapse and all indications are that he should return before the end of the season.

The Sox have Jackie Bradley on the roster and Quentin Berry should be able to steal a base when needed. Worth noting: The Sox are 10-4 this season in games Ellsbury hasn't started.

Given Ellsbury's pending free agency, might the Sox play Bradley every day to see what they have in him?

The incentive: If the Sox win the division, they'll have four days off before their first playoff game, which would almost certainly be at home. Four days off would help battered players like Ellsbury, Shane Victorino, Mike Napoli and Jarrod Saltalamacchia feel significantly better.

Prediction: The Sox go 10-7 down the stretch and finish with 97 wins. That would win the division going away.

[sk7326]

It amazes me no end how much attention the start of the pro football season now gets in this town right in the middle of what has got to be considered one of the watershed and most entertaining seasons in Red Sox history.

I played both games on an organized basis at least through high school and while telling a teenage boy that he is going to be able to go out and hit people as hard as he can every day for a couple months has an appeal all its own at that age, baseball IMO is so much a better game. It is even a better TV game if MLB in its various monied constituencies, owners, PA and Networks had not fucked it up so much.

You don't see what matters watching football on TV. By the time the QB either hands the ball off or throws the ball, the play has already happened. Yet unless you know what to look for and are fortunate in what the damned camera is following, your chances of seeing it are slim to none. In baseball at least you get to see the pitcher throwing to the catcher with the batter in the box. While I would love a positional shot of the fielders more often than baseball provides it, you get to see the relationship between the pitcher and hitter, the most important relationship to the outcome of every single play or pitch. On top of that, the cameras are quick enough to at least get you to where the fielder is going to make his play and what he is going to do from there. Only the three groups in combination, owners, PA and Networks could have fucked up something so beautiful to the point now where there are serious discussions that pro football is now the "national pastime". I could just scream!

It would have happened anyway. Football's attachment to gambling (and I include fantasy here) and what a perfect game it is for television - both (as well as how little it requires of fans) made its appeal kind of inevitable. Baseball did not help itself - although mostly by not selling the things that are appealing about the game now (as well as getting wood bats into kids hands across the board). But baseball was going to have a hard time regardless - fewer playing it younger, and it is hard to have a good "game of the week" culture when virtually every game is on television.

[rjortiz]

Football is the new national pastime. I love baseball, but it doesn't cause church attendance to drop.

[Youk Of The Nation]

Football is the new national pastime. I love baseball, but it doesn't cause church attendance to drop.

That's because most baseball fans have given up on believing in God. I wonder if there are any Cubs fans left who aren't either atheists or Satanists by now.

[Thunder]

That's because most baseball fans have given up on believing in God. I wonder if there are any Cubs fans left who aren't either atheists or Satanists by now.

I wonder how many Cubs fan are even left, period.

[a700hitter]

Epstein the egotist is only in year 2 of his 5 year plan. He needs more time.

[rjortiz]

Epstein the egotist is only in year 2 of his 5 year plan. He needs more time.

In fairness to Epstein, he's done a pretty good job rebuilding the farm system. That franchise was in awful shape when he took over, and they needed to start from scratch. He had a pretty decent track record drafting and developing players. Other than the 2004 trade, he didn't make the best trades, and his free agency record is not that great. That is what will make or break the Cubs.

[Youk Of The Nation]

My bet is on "break".

[rjortiz]

My bet is on "break".

I wouldn't be shocked at all to see Ellsbury flop on him, and the Rays fleece him in a David Price deal.

[Navafan29]

It would have happened anyway. Football's attachment to gambling (and I include fantasy here) and what a perfect game it is for television - both (as well as how little it requires of fans) made its appeal kind of inevitable. Baseball did not help itself - although mostly by not selling the things that are appealing about the game now (as well as getting wood bats into kids hands across the board). But baseball was going to have a hard time regardless - fewer playing it younger, and it is hard to have a good "game of the week" culture when virtually every game is on television.

If you think baseball has problems now, wait until we expand instant replay to remove all controversy and make the sport boring.

[VA Sox Fan]

If you think baseball has problems now, wait until we expand instant replay to remove all controversy and make the sport boring.

They won't be able to use on balls vs strikes and that's always a hot button for a lot of fans.

[sk7326]

In fairness to Epstein, he's done a pretty good job rebuilding the farm system. That franchise was in awful shape when he took over, and they needed to start from scratch. He had a pretty decent track record drafting and developing players. Other than the 2004 trade, he didn't make the best trades, and his free agency record is not that great. That is what will make or break the Cubs.

Well part of it is how much leeway he has (or whether it really mattered) to hold on to guys and not make a big splash. The Cubs ownership made a big splash to sign him (as opposed to the Red Sox who promoted him from within) so he should have more freedom to not make moves based on TV ratings. His free agent evaluation was not great (although almost all free agent signings are negative return) but he can build systems. Certainly his staffs have all been among the best - at the end of the day a lot of this is ownership priority. If ownership says NESN needs us to sign Carl Crawford, then all the talent evaluation doesn't matter.

[seabeachfred]

It amazes me no end how much attention the start of the pro football season now gets in this town right in the middle of what has got to be considered one of the watershed and most entertaining seasons in Red Sox history.

I played both games on an organized basis at least through high school and while telling a teenage boy that he is going to be able to go out and hit people as hard as he can every day for a couple months has an appeal all its own at that age, baseball IMO is so much a better game. It is even a better TV game if MLB in its various monied constituencies, owners, PA and Networks had not fucked it up so much.

You don't see what matters watching football on TV. By the time the QB either hands the ball off or throws the ball, the play has already happened. Yet unless you know what to look for and are fortunate in what the damned camera is following, your chances of seeing it are slim to none. In baseball at least you get to see the pitcher throwing to the catcher with the batter in the box. While I would love a positional shot of the fielders more often than baseball provides it, you get to see the relationship between the pitcher and hitter, the most important relationship to the outcome of every single play or pitch. On top of that, the cameras are quick enough to at least get you to where the fielder is going to make his play and what he is going to do from there. Only the three groups in combination, owners, PA and Networks could have fucked up something so beautiful to the point now where there are serious discussions that pro football is now the "national pastime". I could just scream!

Well said Jung. I coached both sports when I was a teacher. During football season when I was coaching that sport I was thinking of baseball. I never thought of football when I was coaching our favorite sport. I think baseball has football beat 2-1. It is a better radio game and better in person. Football might better as a TV game but it is so predictable. You either throw the ball or hand it off. When the pitcher throws the ball there are dozens of scenarios, and when it comes to talent nothing is harder than hitting a round ball with a round bat. That talent alone has driven countless athletes to the football field.

[seabeachfred]

I'm still a little worried VA; still haven't fully recovered from 2011, but I hope you're right. Kuddos to you for your upbeat take on things. I hope I can fall in line within a week.

[Thunder]

Yesterday's loss woke me up a little bit. All FGL humor aside, I was ready to roll my windows down and watch the Sox cruise to the playoffs, but this will be a tough and very important week coming up. I would love to see Clay start against the Yankees on Sunday. Dempster can go to the pen, that's fine. We need one game at a time. A chance of a repeat of 2011 is still very possible.

[VA Sox Fan]

I'm still a little worried VA; still haven't fully recovered from 2011, but I hope you're right. Kuddos to you for your upbeat take on things. I hope I can fall in line within a week.

Not sure which post of mine you're referring to but thanks.

[rjortiz]

Yesterday's loss woke me up a little bit. All FGL humor aside, I was ready to roll my windows down and watch the Sox cruise to the playoffs, but this will be a tough and very important week coming up. I would love to see Clay start against the Yankees on Sunday. Dempster can go to the pen, that's fine. We need one game at a time. A chance of a repeat of 2011 is still very possible.

Nope. Zero percent chance of that happening. Rays played seven against us in 2011, they only play three this year. Compared to 2011, the Red Sox would have to play at a worse percentage, and the Rays would have to play better. Not happening.

[sk7326]

The Red Sox have not flat run out of healthy pitchers this time around. Our rotation is healthy and the bullpen is in solid shape. I am not worried about the playoffs - just a seed.

[sk7326]

Yesterday's loss woke me up a little bit. All FGL humor aside, I was ready to roll my windows down and watch the Sox cruise to the playoffs, but this will be a tough and very important week coming up. I would love to see Clay start against the Yankees on Sunday. Dempster can go to the pen, that's fine. We need one game at a time. A chance of a repeat of 2011 is still very possible.

We weren't going to go unbeaten. We had no business almost winning yesterday - took a rally to do even THAT. We were bound to lose here and there.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Yesterday's loss woke me up a little bit. All FGL humor aside, I was ready to roll my windows down and watch the Sox cruise to the playoffs, but this will be a tough and very important week coming up. I would love to see Clay start against the Yankees on Sunday. Dempster can go to the pen, that's fine. We need one game at a time. A chance of a repeat of 2011 is still very possible.

Couple things -

- Through 145 G in 2011, the Red Sox had a 4.5 game lead on the Rays in the WC. Through 145 G in 2013, the Red Sox have a 7.5 game lead on the Rays in the AL East. In order to lose this lead at this point, it would require a bigger collapse than 2011.

- If the Red Sox play .500 baseball (or a tick above it, I guess, since there are 17 games left), and go 9-8, they would win 96 games. For the Rays to win 96 games, they must go 18-2. Hell, if the Red Sox go 4-13 the rest of the way, for the Rays to tie they'd have to go 13-7.

- The Sox still have games against TOR (who no longer has Bautista, as he has been shut down for the year) and COL. Those are two very easy series.

- The Red Sox play 17 games in 20 days from here on out. The Rays play 20 games in 20 days. And they're coming off a horrific west coast trip. Their bullpen arms are obviously getting tired, and their starters aren't performing well at all. Not to mention they're ice cold with the bats.

No, this is not another 2011. If the Red Sox and Rays play exactly like 2011 from today on, the Red Sox win the East with a 2 game lead.

[Orange Juiced]

Couple things -

- Through 145 G in 2011, the Red Sox had a 4.5 game lead on the Rays in the WC. Through 145 G in 2013, the Red Sox have a 7.5 game lead on the Rays in the AL East. In order to lose this lead at this point, it would require a bigger collapse than 2011.

- If the Red Sox play .500 baseball (or a tick above it, I guess, since there are 17 games left), and go 9-8, they would win 96 games. For the Rays to win 96 games, they must go 18-2. Hell, if the Red Sox go 4-13 the rest of the way, for the Rays to tie they'd have to go 13-7.

- The Sox still have games against TOR (who no longer has Bautista, as he has been shut down for the year) and COL. Those are two very easy series.

- The Red Sox play 17 games in 20 days from here on out. The Rays play 20 games in 20 days. And they're coming off a horrific west coast trip. Their bullpen arms are obviously getting tired, and their starters aren't performing well at all. Not to mention they're ice cold with the bats.

No, this is not another 2011. If the Red Sox and Rays play exactly like 2011 from today on, the Red Sox win the East with a 2 game lead.

Not to say that crazy things can't happen, but it is exceedingly difficult for me to see how the Sox do not win the division at this point. Just go 7-10 and the Rays have to go 16-4 just to tie.

Put it this way: the Rays need to sweep this series against the Sox to have any chance whatsoever.

Sox' magic number is just 12.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

If you think baseball has problems now, wait until we expand instant replay to remove all controversy and make the sport boring.
Well this was one of the dumbest things I've read in a while.

[Youk Of The Nation]

Okay, I feel stupid for asking this, but the magic number thing...the Sox number is any combination of Sox wins and Rays losses, right? Or is it losses by anyone in the division still mathematically in the race?

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Combination os Sox win/Rays loss

[SoxFanForsyth]

Combination os Sox win/Rays loss

This is confusing because he said O's, but he meant "combo of Sox win/Rays loss"

[SoxFanForsyth]

Red Sox can go 8-8 in final 16, and Rays would have to go 18-1 in final 19.

Honestly, though. At this point, I am not even sure the Rays make the post season.

[sk7326]

Magic Number formula

2nd place team has X losses ... suppose they win out, they have 162-X wins.
1st place team has to win 162-X+1 games to win the division

(162-X+1) - (number of wins 1st place team currently has) = Magic Number. Obviously when 2nd place team loses, X goes up - and then a team wins their current wins goes up. So both drive the magic number down.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

This is confusing because he said O's, but he meant "combo of Sox win/Rays loss"

Yeah haha, sorry about that.

[BenUKPatsSoxCeltics4Life]

Maths wise Redsox must be over 99.7%.

Tampa Bay might get 12 wins but they have a tired pen and such cold bats that frankly 12 wins they would take from here no doubt!

Baltimore and Yankees are simply too far behind for us to heavily be concerned with them taking the division. The only way that would happen is with a 7-0 sweep!!! Considering our depth in pitching and ability to score 20 runs ocassionally- this is a 1000/1 shot. Especially as we aint lost 4 in a row all season.

It would be nice if we win at least one more of the tampa series to put them further behind

[Station 13]

magic number is down to 10 with last night win against the closest team behind them. 5 more wins and 5 more Rays lost the Sox clinch the division. Could happen this weekend.

[sk7326]

Win was huge - basically clinches our position over Tampa. Even if we lose the next 2, Tampa is still 6.5 games back with 14 games to go. That two game swing earned last night should be enough (barring the usual) to win the division though the math won't shake down for a while.

[Orange Juiced]

Yeah, I think winning tonight or tomorrow would absolutely nail it down. Take one of the next two and the Sox would be up 8.5 with 14 left. Almost impossible to overcome that for Tampa.

[Youk Of The Nation]

So if the Sox win 2 out of 3 in each of the series left this month and sweep the two-game series against the Rockies, that will be 100 wins. Awesome.

[Thunder]

So if the Sox win 2 out of 3 in each of the series left this month and sweep the two-game series against the Rockies, that will be 100 wins. Awesome.

Certainly very possible.

[wyo-sox]

So if the Sox win 2 out of 3 in each of the series left this month and sweep the two-game series against the Rockies, that will be 100 wins. Awesome.

I will do my part. Got tickets to both of the Rockies games. Will be cheering them on in Denver. Such a great season. I really want to say I saw the 2013 Sox play.

[Orange Juiced]

I have to say, this stretch of baseball by the Sox starting with the SF series has been one of the most enjoyable I can ever remember as a fan.

vs. SF - took 2 of 3, lost one in tough fashion, but it was a good way to kick off the west coast swing
vs. LAD - took 2 of 3 from the hottest team in baseball; starting pitching was really rolling at this point
vs. Bal - took 2 of 3, lost a tough last one, but still, playing great
vs. ChW - swept a 3-game series, in impressive fashion; Chi isn't very good but still, nice to sweep a series
vs. Det - took 2 of 3, beating Scherzer and then putting up the 20-spot; great two-day stretch
vs. NYY - took 3 of 4, winning in incredible fashion, and putting up two BS against Mariano
vs. TB - have taken the first 2 in this series as well, beating Price and Cobb in the process

That's 16 out of 21, with some prodigious offense and great pitching thrown in there, along with a handful of dramatic, clutch hits. It's just been awesome to watch.

[sk7326]

This stretch has coincided with Middlebrooks beefing up a dreadful 3B position - and a series of strong, effective starts ... basically aside from a couple of Doubront stinkers - the rotation has continually kept the team and the pitching staff on schedule.

[mvp 78]

I will do my part. Got tickets to both of the Rockies games. Will be cheering them on in Denver. Such a great season. I really want to say I saw the 2013 Sox play.

How is it going to games at that stadium?

[VA Sox Fan]

This stretch has coincided with Middlebrooks beefing up a dreadful 3B position - and a series of strong, effective starts ... basically aside from a couple of Doubront stinkers - the rotation has continually kept the team and the pitching staff on schedule.

Demster has been much better lately. He looked pretty bad mid season. I thought he'd be the obvious choice to go to the BP but with Doubront's last 2 starts, I don't know. Not sure how that'll pan out.

[Orange Juiced]

How is it going to games at that stadium?

I've been to Coors Field twice. I actually got to take batting practice there once, believe it or not. My best hit was a one-hopper. Couldn't clear the fence.

Anyway, BEAUTIFUL place to watch a game, IMO. People are friendly, the park is nice, and Denver is a pretty place to be in general.

[Beaneater]

Another thing to see in our recent play (not that this insight is especially brilliant) is who we did it against. SF's not great, but they were at home on the West Coast. LAD was incandescent. BAL and NYY are wild card contenders. Admittedly, CHW blows and a half-decent team would not have gotten swept in that series. DET is very very good, and TB is in current possession of a wild card. So we're pounding the patsies and more than holding our own against good teams.

Sure, luck has factored in. We've missed some of the opposing teams' aces, like Kershaw and Sale (though he has to throw a CG to get a win, judging by the results vs. NYY). We've hit 173-foot grand slams (Napoli say thanks, Yankee Stadium). But then we've also just matched up, strength to strength, and won (i.e. Scherzer vs. Lester).

So it looks like we're going to win the division. We're scoring runs and we have a fearsome 4 man postseason rotation. We all know the playoffs are a crapshoot, but let's just say there's no one saying, "Man, I hope we end up playing the Red Sox!"

[mvp 78]

I've been to Coors Field twice. I actually got to take batting practice there once, believe it or not. My best hit was a one-hopper. Couldn't clear the fence.

Anyway, BEAUTIFUL place to watch a game, IMO. People are friendly, the park is nice, and Denver is a pretty place to be in general.
Once my kid is old enough, I plan on having a few summer trips to stadiums I haven't been to. Really want to go to Seattle, Pittsburgh, Wrigley, San Diego and Baltimore. If Tigers Stadium was still used, it'd be first on my list.

I've only been to Fenway, SF, Dodgers Stadium, Oakland and Olympic Stadium (Expos!).

[sk7326]

Demster has been much better lately. He looked pretty bad mid season. I thought he'd be the obvious choice to go to the BP but with Doubront's last 2 starts, I don't know. Not sure how that'll pan out.

What we have seen I think is that Dempster is pretty effective one time through the order, where he can throw his splitter without thinking about it. In relief the FB could be more like 92 than 89 and he can feel free to throw the splitter as much as he wants. He could be very good for 6 outs at a time. Heck, I think that about Doubront too, but Doubront has more stretches where he just cannot find his mechanics at all.

[Orange Juiced]

Once my kid is old enough, I plan on having a few summer trips to stadiums I haven't been to. Really want to go to Seattle, Pittsburgh, Wrigley, San Diego and Baltimore. If Tigers Stadium was still used, it'd be first on my list.

I've only been to Fenway, SF, Dodgers Stadium, Oakland and Olympic Stadium (Expos!).

I haven't been that many places: Fenway, Yankee Stadium (both the old and new), Shea Stadium (never been to CitiField), Camden Yards (AMAZING), Philadelphia (the old stadium), Nationals Park (another great place), and Coors Field.

I highly recommend Camden Yards at some point. There are actually a lot of places I'd like to go.

[Jasonbay44]

Yeah, Camden Yards is a really nice park, I always try to go to at least one Sox/Orioles game in Baltimore since I live by the park. I love that stadium.

[a700hitter]

What we have seen I think is that Dempster is pretty effective one time through the order, where he can throw his splitter without thinking about it. In relief the FB could be more like 92 than 89 and he can feel free to throw the splitter as much as he wants. He could be very good for 6 outs at a time. Heck, I think that about Doubront too, but Doubront has more stretches where he just cannot find his mechanics at all.He seems to be getting a second wind and he is experienced pitching out of the bullpen. He could be helpful in the playoffs.

[wyo-sox]

How is it going to games at that stadium?

This will be my first time there. While it's the closest mlb park to me, it's still like 8 hrs away.

[User Name?]

Once my kid is old enough, I plan on having a few summer trips to stadiums I haven't been to. Really want to go to Seattle, Pittsburgh, Wrigley, San Diego and Baltimore. If Tigers Stadium was still used, it'd be first on my list.

I've only been to Fenway, SF, Dodgers Stadium, Oakland and Olympic Stadium (Expos!).

Comerica Park is a great place to catch a ballgame, let me tell you.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

Once my kid is old enough, I plan on having a few summer trips to stadiums I haven't been to. Really want to go to Seattle, Pittsburgh, Wrigley, San Diego and Baltimore. If Tigers Stadium was still used, it'd be first on my list.

I've only been to Fenway, SF, Dodgers Stadium, Oakland and Olympic Stadium (Expos!).

Major points for an awesome dad.

[BenUKPatsSoxCeltics4Life]

Who do we prefer, Indians or Tampa. Not who we like more who do we have a better chance of stuffing.

I guess given who runs Indians it would be nice to stomp them.

[Thunder]

I haven't been that many places: Fenway, Yankee Stadium (both the old and new), Shea Stadium (never been to CitiField), Camden Yards (AMAZING), Philadelphia (the old stadium), Nationals Park (another great place), and Coors Field.

I highly recommend Camden Yards at some point. There are actually a lot of places I'd like to go.

I've been dying to go to Camden Yards. My sister-in-law's sister is a huge Baltimore sports fan. I'm sure she can hook me up.

I've only been to Fenway, Yankee Stadium (both), Cleveland, and Oakland. My goal at some point in life is to go to all 30.

[Thunder]

I'm looking on aceticket.com right now for ALDS game 2 tickets. The RF line is only $250 a pop.

[rjortiz]

I'm looking on aceticket.com right now for ALDS game 2 tickets. The RF line is only $250 a pop.

Only? Be sure to say please and thank you when you use Daddy's credit card.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

I should try to get tickets to Minute Maid or Ameriquest for when the Sox make their rounds next year. Houston will probably be a lot easier.

[Thunder]

Look what I found:
http://sports.yahoo.com/photos/mlb-playoffs-elimination-tracker-slideshow/