Referendum on John Farrell

[SoxnCycles]

There's that old adage about running into a buzz saw. I think that's what happened.

 

All you have to do is look at the Jays. Unlike us, they came into the series against Cleveland red hot, winning their last 2 of the regular season, the Wild Card game and sweeping out Texas. Then Cleveland shut them down just like they did to us.

 

Yup, despite losing their top two starters, the Indian's pitching staff was phenomenal in both series.

They outhit Toronto by 7 hits, but it was the starting rotation and Francona's bullpen managment that got it done.

 

Price and Porcello could learn a thing or two about handling playoff pressure from Ryan Meritt.

[oldtimer]

Let's roll back to 2004. The Red Sox come from a 3-0 deficit to beat the Yankees, then beat St. Lous 4 games to 0. I've always thought that the Cards were a better team than they showed in that series but had the misfortune to step in front of a rolling freight train.

 

Now let's go forward three years. The Sox come back from being behind the Guardians 3-0, then sweep 4 straight from the Angels, then take four straight games from the then-hot Rockies. Two rolling freight trains collided, but the Rockies may have been suffering from the same malady that the Sox were suffering from this year, being unable to sustain a long winning streak.

 

Sometimes it's hard to stop one of those trains!

 

I really don't know what JF might have done differently but the results of note are not only the Cleveland games, but the games just before them. We played kind of uninspired baseball. I just saw a glimmer late in game 3 of the Sox fighting to stay alive.

 

I look at NFL football and Bill Belichick for inspiration. They are in the hunt every year, yet they seldom get any decent draft choices and often make do with cast offs in key positions, like running back. Why are they perennial powers? I note that if a guy fumbles he is out of the game. If a guy misses an assignment he is out of the game. There are consequences. Guys are expected to play their positions hard and smartly.

 

I don't see the consequences play out that much in baseball. I see a stoic manager and guys that continue to struggle for long periods. Can baseball be managed with more enthusiasm and with consequences near at hand? Again, I don't know but if the results aren't good enough, you look everywhere for solutions.

[Slasher9]

JF should have listened to me back in August when i said Price should be in the bullpen for the postseason. we probably win the WS.

[sk7326]

Let's roll back to 2004. The Red Sox come from a 3-0 deficit to beat the Yankees, then beat St. Lous 4 games to 0. I've always thought that the Cards were a better team than they showed in that series but had the misfortune to step in front of a rolling freight train.

 

Now let's go forward three years. The Sox come back from being behind the Guardians 3-0, then sweep 4 straight from the Angels, then take four straight games from the then-hot Rockies. Two rolling freight trains collided, but the Rockies may have been suffering from the same malady that the Sox were suffering from this year, being unable to sustain a long winning streak.

 

Sometimes it's hard to stop one of those trains!

 

Especially with Carpenter hurt, the 2004 Red Sox were pretty clearly one of the Top 2 teams in the entire league that year - they knocked off the other Top 2 team. Hell, there is a pretty good case the 2004 Red Sox were the best team of the 21st century to date.

 

In 2007 the Sox swept Anaheim, came from 3-1 down to pick off Cleveland. Again in the ALCS, you basically had the major's two best teams - the Sox knocked out the other Top 2 team. You would have picked the Red Sox to beat Colorado in virtually any context (home, away, in a house, with a mouse, in a boat, with a goat, here or there, anywhere)

 

Colorado went on a crazy 20-2 stretch to make the playoffs - but the Sox were always the better side.

 

The Sox were a freight train both times - but they did not catch fire per se - they were the best team in those cases. (and in 2013 too where they knocked off the 2nd best team in the World Series)

[Bellhorn04]

JF should have listened to me back in August when i said Price should be in the bullpen for the postseason. we probably win the WS.

 

That'd be more plausible if we didn't also lose the games started by Porcello & Buch.

[Eddy Ballgame]

Yup, despite losing their top two starters, the Indian's pitching staff was phenomenal in both series.

They outhit Toronto by 7 hits, but it was the starting rotation and Francona's bullpen managment that got it done.

 

Price and Porcello could learn a thing or two about handling playoff pressure from Ryan Meritt.

 

I found it interesting that Nick Cafardo wrote in a column this week that using closers in high leverage situations as opposed to just "closing," was John Farrell's idea when he was Sox pitching coach under Tito.

[sk7326]

I found it interesting that Nick Cafardo wrote in a column this week that using closers in high leverage situations as opposed to just "closing," was John Farrell's idea when he was Sox pitching coach under Tito.

 

I have no doubt Farrell would have done it too. He had no qualms being aggressive with Taazawa, Breslow and Uehara in 2013. Just never had the chance.

[S5Dewey]

I found it interesting that Nick Cafardo wrote in a column this week that using closers in high leverage situations as opposed to just "closing," was John Farrell's idea when he was Sox pitching coach under Tito.

 

It started many years ago with Bill James. James is the first person I can remember who said that a manager should use his "closer", i.e. his best pitcher in a high leverage situation, in the highest leverage situations regardless of the inning. Unfortunately since it was such a novel idea that nobody started doing it for several years.

IMO that may be because managers are always concerned about losing their jobs by being second-guessed if something they do doesn't work. Now Tito has the personnel to do it and make it work.

 

Something that still rankles me is that when the Sox got Andrew Miller he was always seen as someone with electric stuff who couldn't find the plate. Then under the tutelage of John Farrell et. al. Miller has become what he is now, and we don't have him!

[sk7326]

It started many years ago with Bill James. James is the first person I can remember who said that a manager should use his "closer", i.e. his best pitcher in a high leverage situation, in the highest leverage situations regardless of the inning. Unfortunately since it was such a novel idea that nobody started doing it for several years.

IMO that may be because managers are always concerned about losing their jobs by being second-guessed if something they do doesn't work. Now Tito has the personnel to do it and make it work.

 

Something that still rankles me is that when the Sox got Andrew Miller he was always seen as someone with electric stuff who couldn't find the plate. Then under the tutelage of John Farrell et. al. Miller has become what he is now, and we don't have him!

 

They turned an almost washout into a 23 year old starter with Top 2 potential - it'd be nice to have him, but the Sox did well

[Eddy Ballgame]

They turned an almost washout into a 23 year old starter with Top 2 potential - it'd be nice to have him, but the Sox did well

 

It would've been nice to have both, though. The Sox offered Miller 4/32 while the Yankees signed him for 4/36. I'm not sure if the Sox were given an opportunity to beat the Yankees offer or if they would've been willing to, but in hindsight, I'm sure they would have now.

[Kimmi]

Just for clarification, these were the Sporting News MOTY awards. The MLB awards will come after the WS.

 

Ah. I missed that, although I did know somewhere in the back of my mind that they didn't announce the awards until after the WS.

 

Congrats to Tito and Roberts anyway.

[Kimmi]

Let's roll back to 2004. The Red Sox come from a 3-0 deficit to beat the Yankees, then beat St. Lous 4 games to 0. I've always thought that the Cards were a better team than they showed in that series but had the misfortune to step in front of a rolling freight train.

 

Now let's go forward three years. The Sox come back from being behind the Guardians 3-0, then sweep 4 straight from the Angels, then take four straight games from the then-hot Rockies. Two rolling freight trains collided, but the Rockies may have been suffering from the same malady that the Sox were suffering from this year, being unable to sustain a long winning streak.

 

Sometimes it's hard to stop one of those trains!

 

There really is not rhyme or reason to hot or cold streaks or momentum. A team can have all the momentum in the world and it can change as quickly as you can flip a switch.

 

Momentum has no predictive value.

[Kimmi]

Yup, despite losing their top two starters, the Indian's pitching staff was phenomenal in both series.

They outhit Toronto by 7 hits, but it was the starting rotation and Francona's bullpen managment that got it done.

 

Price and Porcello could learn a thing or two about handling playoff pressure from Ryan Meritt.

 

Maybe they need to get some Ryan Merritt boots.

 

I am really surprised that Price has not pitched well in the postseason.

[S5Dewey]

There really is not rhyme or reason to hot or cold streaks or momentum. A team can have all the momentum in the world and it can change as quickly as you can flip a switch.

 

Momentum has no predictive value.

 

Well, if what you're saying is that a winning streak or a losing streak can end anytime, obviously I'd agree with you. If that weren't the way some teams would never win and some would never lose. Their streaks would go on forever.

 

However, speaking as someone who's played and coached sports all his life I know for sure that confidence has a lot to do with wins and losses. All things being equal, a team whose players have confidence will be more successful than a team whose players don't have confidence. There's an old saying that applies in baseball as well as in life. "If you don't think you're going to be successful you're not going to have much trouble being right".

 

A good portion of any sport is mental and the mental aspect can't be quantified. I realize that many people wrongly assume that if something can't be quantified then it isn't true but anyone who's played any sport, whether it be baseball, basketball, golf, or any sport, knows how important the mental aspect of any sport is. And a lot of the mental aspect of a sport relates to wins, losses. winning streaks and losing streaks.

[cp176]

Well, if what you're saying is that a winning streak or a losing streak can end anytime, obviously I'd agree with you. If that weren't the way some teams would never win and some would never lose. Their streaks would go on forever.

 

However, speaking as someone who's played and coached sports all his life I know for sure that confidence has a lot to do with wins and losses. All things being equal, a team whose players have confidence will be more successful than a team whose players don't have confidence. There's an old saying that applies in baseball as well as in life. "If you don't think you're going to be successful you're not going to have much trouble being right".

 

A good portion of any sport is mental and the mental aspect can't be quantified. I realize that many people wrongly assume that if something can't be quantified then it isn't true but anyone who's played any sport, whether it be baseball, basketball, golf, or any sport, knows how important the mental aspect of any sport is. And a lot of the mental aspect of a sport relates to wins, losses. winning streaks and losing streaks.

 

On this we agree

[S5Dewey]

Maybe they need to get some Ryan Merritt boots.

 

I am really surprised that Price has not pitched well in the postseason.

 

I am too. All the statistics say he should have!

 

If you think there's not something going on there then you have a lot more confidence in coincidences than I do.

[Kimmi]

Well, if what you're saying is that a winning streak or a losing streak can end anytime, obviously I'd agree with you. If that weren't the way some teams would never win and some would never lose. Their streaks would go on forever.

 

However, speaking as someone who's played and coached sports all his life I know for sure that confidence has a lot to do with wins and losses. All things being equal, a team whose players have confidence will be more successful than a team whose players don't have confidence. There's an old saying that applies in baseball as well as in life. "If you don't think you're going to be successful you're not going to have much trouble being right".

 

A good portion of any sport is mental and the mental aspect can't be quantified. I realize that many people wrongly assume that if something can't be quantified then it isn't true but anyone who's played any sport, whether it be baseball, basketball, golf, or any sport, knows how important the mental aspect of any sport is. And a lot of the mental aspect of a sport relates to wins, losses. winning streaks and losing streaks.

 

What I'm saying is that a team that scuffled through the month of September or the last two weeks of the month has just as good a chance of winning in the post season as a team that was red hot to end the regular season. Momentum has no predictive value.

 

I don't know who the 'many people' are that make this wrong assumption of which you speak, but you're way off base with that statement. The people who use analytics have acknowledged time and time again that there are things that can't be quantified. They have also acknowledged time and time again how important scouting is because of things that can't be quantified.

 

You have quoted Bill James many times. Read his opinions on the human element.

 

Here is something I posted just a few posts ago:

 

...the most important aspect of the manager's job is what takes place off the field. Things like instilling trust and confidence in the players and creating a positive clubhouse atmosphere are factors that I believe help a team to perform better on the field.

 

That sounds to me like I'm saying pretty much the same thing you were talking about and acknowledging the existence of something that can't be quantified.

[Kimmi]

I am too. All the statistics say he should have!

 

If you think there's not something going on there then you have a lot more confidence in coincidences than I do.

 

I would like to quote my man Dave Cameron who wrote this before the postseason started, and nailed it.

 

"Over the next few weeks, you’re going to hear that a winning team simply showed more heart, or that a losing team (or specific player on a losing team) couldn’t handle the pressure of the situation. You’re going to be told that these games are a test of the character of the individuals playing in it, and that we can come to some conclusion about the moral fiber of those involved by how they perform on the field. We’re all going to hear that what teams did for the last six months doesn’t matter, and that we should judge them solely on what happens over the next six weeks.

 

Every bit of that is garbage. The postseason is not a test of character for the individuals involved, the teams themselves, or the managers leading the charge. It is not a place where we find out what people are made of, or a proving ground for someone’s mental strength. It’s a three week tournament on a level playing field between teams that are fairly evenly matched up, and one where a single bounce here or there can change the entire outcome."

[SoxHop]

I would like to quote my man Dave Cameron who wrote this before the postseason started, and nailed it.

 

"Over the next few weeks, you’re going to hear that a winning team simply showed more heart, or that a losing team (or specific player on a losing team) couldn’t handle the pressure of the situation. You’re going to be told that these games are a test of the character of the individuals playing in it, and that we can come to some conclusion about the moral fiber of those involved by how they perform on the field. We’re all going to hear that what teams did for the last six months doesn’t matter, and that we should judge them solely on what happens over the next six weeks.

 

Every bit of that is garbage. The postseason is not a test of character for the individuals involved, the teams themselves, or the managers leading the charge. It is not a place where we find out what people are made of, or a proving ground for someone’s mental strength. It’s a three week tournament on a level playing field between teams that are fairly evenly matched up, and one where a single bounce here or there can change the entire outcome."

 

So, humans all deal with stress the exact same way? And the playoffs are just a game of pinball.

 

I'd like to hear what some of the players that stepped up to the mound and pitched in playoff ball have to say about that.

[Dojji]

So, humans all deal with stress the exact same way? And the playoffs are just a game of pinball.

 

You really love strawmen. Are you related to the Scarecrow from Wizard of Oz?

 

A middle ground actually exists between "IT'S ALL SOMEBODY'S FAULT I JUST DON'T KNOW WHO!" and "THE PLAYOFFS ARE NOTHING BUT A GAME OF PURE CHANCE!" Believe it or not.

 

My opinion is that it's impossible to eliminate random chance and any analysis of a recent playoff performance has to account for baseball's tendency to occasionally throw the probability tables out the window and tell a story instead. But also that these stories are the exception and that most of the time, the probability tables are going to have their say and either team is a sequence of good/bad bounces away from having their postseason turned on its head at any time.

 

And BTW, when we say "random" a lot of us myself included are also lumping in with that the separate but related category of "things that were major or minor contributing factors to the outcome, that we only learned about afterward and couldn't possibly have predicted or identified at the time." Stuff like injuries the team was keeping out of the press, illness, clubhouse mood, fatigue, whether the team went out to eat before the game and got into some bad oysters, you get the idea.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Dojji

[SoxHop]

You really love strawmen. Are you related to the Scarecrow from Wizard of Oz?

 

A middle ground actually exists between "IT'S ALL SOMEBODY'S FAULT I JUST DON'T KNOW WHO!" and "THE PLAYOFFS ARE NOTHING BUT A GAME OF PURE CHANCE!" Believe it or not.

 

My opinion is that it's impossible to eliminate random chance and any analysis of a recent playoff performance has to account for baseball's tendency to occasionally throw the probability tables out the window and tell a story instead. But also that these stories are the exception and that most of the time, the probability tables are going to have their say and either team is a sequence of good/bad bounces away from having their postseason turned on its head at any time.

 

And BTW, when we say "random" a lot of us myself included are also lumping in with that the separate but related category of "things that were major or minor contributing factors to the outcome, that we only learned about afterward and couldn't possibly have predicted or identified at the time." Stuff like injuries the team was keeping out of the press, illness, clubhouse mood, fatigue, whether the team went out to eat before the game and got into some bad oysters, you get the idea.

 

Wait.... I thought I was saying there is more to a playoff win other than chance, and that there is a gray middle ground, and that the coach has something to do with it, other than the flower game of she loves me, she loves me not. And yea, there are some major and minor stuff that you can lump into a "who knows" category, but the coach either calls it right or doesn't. That is the coaches read on how to handle that.

 

And..... f you about the strawman thing....... seriously, I'm not even blaming him which I've written before you ass. I think Farrell did a great job this year getting us to the playoffs. I realize playoffs are a crap shoot. But if I had to say we ready for the playoffs we absolutely weren't for some reason or another. Want to take this in another directions, how do you now know Farrell wasn't chasing some reporter tail during the last two weeks after night after night doing body tequila shots......... YOU DON"T KNOW, I know as much as you do. All we have is the results. Tell me again he did a great job managing the team during the playoffs.....

[Bellhorn04]

What I'm saying is that a team that scuffled through the month of September or the last two weeks of the month has just as good a chance of winning in the post season as a team that was red hot to end the regular season. Momentum has no predictive value.

 

I don't know who the 'many people' are that make this wrong assumption of which you speak, but you're way off base with that statement. The people who use analytics have acknowledged time and time again that there are things that can't be quantified. They have also acknowledged time and time again how important scouting is because of things that can't be quantified.

 

You have quoted Bill James many times. Read his opinions on the human element.

 

Here is something I posted just a few posts ago:

 

That sounds to me like I'm saying pretty much the same thing you were talking about and acknowledging the existence of something that can't be quantified.

 

Kimmi, there does seem to be a disconnect here somewhere. On the one hand players can play better if they have 'trust and confidence instilled in them' and they are in a 'positive clubhouse atmosphere'. But on the other hand there's no evidence that some players perform better under pressure than others.

 

It sounds like the only psychological factors being acknowledged are the good ones.

[Dojji]

That's because she's responding to people that are radically overhyping the bad ones.

[Bellhorn04]

But, to get right down to it, she doesn't seem to acknowledge the possibility that David Price's postseason struggles may have a psychological component.

[Dojji]

Because there's no evidence for it. People are speculating and treating the speculation as fact. We have no idea why his numbers in the postseason are bad -- only that they *are* bad. To say anything more than that on the subject just puts one's terrible reasoning skills on display.

[Bellhorn04]

Because there's no evidence for it. People are speculating and treating the speculation as fact. We have no idea why his numbers in the postseason are bad -- only that they *are* bad. To say anything more than that on the subject just puts one's terrible reasoning skills on display.

 

There's also no evidence that players play better if they have 'trust and confidence instilled in them' and they are in a 'positive clubhouse atmosphere'.

 

Hence the disconnect.

[Dojji]

Well, I don't think there was a magical "instill trust and confidence" button that Farrell refused to press for no good reason, so I don't see the issue. Working with another human being is never that simple. I'm sure Farrell did his best but at the end of the day Price has to execute his pitches and take the postseason one pitch at a time.

 

I would love to have a much more experienced catcher guiding this team. I really think that some of our issues in the postseason stem from having an all-young catching staff with little to no postseason experience. THe fact of the matter is that no one has to up their game in the postseason to quite the extent a good catcher does, and no one can steady a pitcher quite like their catcher does -- but if the catcher is nervous and uncertain, that's going to magnify any mental issues a pitcher is having. So if we're having this problem across a pitching staff, I'd look to the catching. Hopefully having seen the dragon this year, our young catchers will be in a better position to meet it and slay it next year. That's the hope anyway.

[S5Dewey]

I would like to quote my man Dave Cameron who wrote this before the postseason started, and nailed it.

 

"Over the next few weeks, you’re going to hear that a winning team simply showed more heart, or that a losing team (or specific player on a losing team) couldn’t handle the pressure of the situation. You’re going to be told that these games are a test of the character of the individuals playing in it, and that we can come to some conclusion about the moral fiber of those involved by how they perform on the field. We’re all going to hear that what teams did for the last six months doesn’t matter, and that we should judge them solely on what happens over the next six weeks.

 

Every bit of that is garbage. The postseason is not a test of character for the individuals involved, the teams themselves, or the managers leading the charge. It is not a place where we find out what people are made of, or a proving ground for someone’s mental strength. It’s a three week tournament on a level playing field between teams that are fairly evenly matched up, and one where a single bounce here or there can change the entire outcome."

 

I'm sorry, but Mr. Cameron's opinion - and that's all it is, his opinion - sounds like it's coming from someone who's never played organized sports. Anyone who's does it knows that some people can play under the stress of having a championship on the line and some can't. However, we can't quantify who can and who can't until the game(s) are over, and even then we can attribute failure to "randomness" if we so choose to. I don't choose to because I know better. Stress and the mental/emotional aspects of the game play a HUGE part in a player's performance. There's a big difference between, for example, making a 6' putt for par during the middle of the summer and making that same putt when the Club Championship is on the line. Some people can harness their emotions and make that put for the Club Championship... and some can't.

 

It's the same with baseball, and most especially the pitchers. There's an incredible amount of stress on a pitcher when he knows that every batter he pitches to is only one 'mistake pitch' away from hitting a HR. Some people 'step up' in that situation (Hello, Curt Schilling) and some don't. And it can't be quantified. To try to find a way to say that David Price = Curt Schilling is flying in the face of the facts. I'm not one to beat up on guys on my own team, but let's get real. Price has an ERA of 5.50 in 15 post season games while Schilling has an ERA of 2.20 in 19 post season games, and while these sample sizes are smaller at the same time they were games played under the same pressure. Some can handle the pressure, some can't.

 

 

The part of Mr Cameron's quote that has the highest garbage quotient is the last sentence, "It’s a three week tournament on a level playing field between teams that are fairly evenly matched up, and one where a single bounce here or there can change the entire outcome." It's not as simple as that. The two teams he speaks of may be fairly evenly matched up in terms of raw talent or record, but if so the team with the stronger emotional make-up will usually win. Bill James (again) has said that most one-run games are decided by luck. A bounce here or a ball hit six inches one way or the other can decide a one run game. The implication there is that games that are decided by more than one run are decided by other things, things like talent and emotional makeup.

 

Anyone who's played sports knows it.

[sk7326]

I'm sorry, but Mr. Cameron's opinion - and that's all it is, his opinion - sounds like it's coming from someone who's never played organized sports. Anyone who's does it knows that some people can play under the stress of having a championship on the line and some can't. However, we can't quantify who can and who can't until the game(s) are over, and even then we can attribute failure to "randomness" if we so choose to. I don't choose to because I know better. Stress and the mental/emotional aspects of the game play a HUGE part in a player's performance. There's a big difference between, for example, making a 6' putt for par during the middle of the summer and making that same putt when the Club Championship is on the line. Some people can harness their emotions and make that put for the Club Championship... and some can't.

 

It's the same with baseball, and most especially the pitchers. There's an incredible amount of stress on a pitcher when he knows that every batter he pitches to is only one 'mistake pitch' away from hitting a HR. Some people 'step up' in that situation (Hello, Curt Schilling) and some don't. And it can't be quantified. To try to find a way to say that David Price = Curt Schilling is flying in the face of the facts. I'm not one to beat up on guys on my own team, but let's get real. Price has an ERA of 5.50 in 15 post season games while Schilling has an ERA of 2.20 in 19 post season games, and while these sample sizes are smaller at the same time they were games played under the same pressure. Some can handle the pressure, some can't.

 

 

The part of Mr Cameron's quote that has the highest garbage quotient is the last sentence, "It’s a three week tournament on a level playing field between teams that are fairly evenly matched up, and one where a single bounce here or there can change the entire outcome." It's not as simple as that. The two teams he speaks of may be fairly evenly matched up in terms of raw talent or record, but if so the team with the stronger emotional make-up will usually win. Bill James (again) has said that most one-run games are decided by luck. A bounce here or a ball hit six inches one way or the other can decide a one run game. The implication there is that games that are decided by more than one run are decided by other things, things like talent and emotional makeup.

 

Anyone who's played sports knows it.

 

1. Not to be nit picky, but ERA is quantification - if you want to go there

2. The mental stuff does matter - but given that this is such a competitive industry, those who wilt under pressure probably wilted in Altoona or Greenville or Chattanooga.

3. Remember the Yankees won the World Series three times in four years. They also blew series in 2003 and 2004 with home field advantage. The greatest closer who ever lived blew a save to win the World Series and another to win the AL Pennant. Does that mean the principals suddenly had issues with composure? Or was it the other team having a hot stretch. Or was it just baseball? Remember Luiz Gonzalez game winning single in the 2001 World Series was basically an outcome Rivera would have been happy with vis a vis his job. (threw a good cutter Gonzalez could not square up with good contact) The blooper fell where there were no fielders - it happens.

4. It IS a tournament between good teams - and that is the source of the pressure. These teams are all good. (and are all probably even in the mental stuff - it's why they are good)

 

Anyone who played baseball knows that you can do the right thing and have nothing to show for it - it happens all the time. Remember, this is a sport where the best hitters still fail at their job over half the time. There is just so much "sh!t happens" noise in any single game that it is hard to get too deep into blame. That doesn't mean that it is all luck - but luck is a pretty significant driver.

[Bellhorn04]

Anyone who played baseball knows that you can do the right thing and have nothing to show for it - it happens all the time. Remember, this is a sport where the best hitters still fail at their job over half the time. There is just so much "sh!t happens" noise in any single game that it is hard to get too deep into blame. That doesn't mean that it is all luck - but luck is a pretty significant driver.

 

Let's forget about hitters for the moment. What about pitchers?

 

Can we really ascribe the vast difference between Schilling's and Price's postseason game logs to luck?

 

It feels like a convenient way to dismiss something that is a rather gaping difference.