Who is your playoff 3?

[Bellhorn04]

He could be. I am a huge Porcello supporter, but right now, even I don't have a lot of confidence in him. He has been far too inconsistent. Whoever Farrell goes with, I hope that he will have a fairly quick hook if a pitcher starts to struggle.

 

Might that be an example of a managerial move that could make a difference?

[Maxbialystock]

My #3 is Fister because I don't think Porcello or ERod has a big game in him. But I'm happy with whoever Farrell picks.

[Maxbialystock]

I'm also fine with Pom in game 2--obviously.

[Spudboy]

My #3 is Fister because I don't think Porcello or ERod has a big game in him. But I'm happy with whoever Farrell picks.

 

I'm with you on this.

 

Sale, Pom, and Fister.

[jacksonianmarch]

Who’s your #4?

[SoxHop]

I'm with you on this.

 

Sale, Pom, and Fister.

 

I'm with you both on this. As I think E-Rod has pretty good fastball stuff. Which I think Houston will crush.

 

I think Fister might just mess with their minds a bit with the different locations he throws.

[moonslav59]

I go with...

 

1. Sale

2. Pom

(day off)

3. ERod

4. Porcello (up 2-1/ Sale (down 2-1)

(day off)

5. Sale or Pom

 

Fister is not even on my first series roster.

 

My 7 man pen is...

Kimbrel

Price

Smith

Reed

Kelly

Barnes

leaning Workman, but maybe Maddox or Scott

 

Edited October 1, 2017 by moonslav59

[jacksonianmarch]

That’s bold. Porcello is a homer happy pitcher facing a homer happy team in a park catered to right handed power. He’d be a ballsy pick

[Northern Star]

Although E-Rod has been inconsistent in September, he's fared better than Porcello. Neither choice is entirely appealing.

[Northern Star]

That’s bold. Porcello is a homer happy pitcher facing a homer happy team in a park catered to right handed power. He’d be a ballsy pick

 

where ballsy is slang for stupid.

[Northern Star]

And where "homer happy" means leading the majors.

[Spudboy]

Who’s your #4?

 

ERod I guess. But not by much. It's essentially a toss-up for me.

 

The addition of an effective Price to the pen may mitigate a bad or short start by a number 4.

[devildavid]

Might that be an example of a managerial move that could make a difference?

 

The quick hook is only a desperation move to limit damage and really can only be applied in a short series but cannot be a permanent, effective strategy.

[Bellhorn04]

The quick hook is only a desperation move to limit damage and really can only be applied in a short series but cannot be a permanent, effective strategy.

 

The question, though, is whether a quick hook can sometimes win you a game.

[notin]

I go with...

 

My 7 man pen is...

Kimbrel dh

Price

Smith

Reed

Kelly

Barnes

leaning Workman, but maybe Maddox or Scott

 

 

 

No 8 man pen?

 

I prefer that to the 5 man bench..

[Kimmi]

Might that be an example of a managerial move that could make a difference?

 

The question, though, is whether a quick hook can sometimes win you a game.

 

Every managerial move makes some difference. Just like every play of the game makes some difference. My points are that managerial moves do not affect the game nearly as much as some people think they do. Nor does any one single play.

 

My argument is against statements like 'Farrell cost us the game by leaving a pitcher in too long' or 'Beni's boneheaded running cost us that game'. Yes, those moves/plays did contribute to the outcome of the game. So did the seemingly insignificant strike one or ball one first pitch of the game.

[Kimmi]

No 8 man pen?

 

I prefer that to the 5 man bench..

 

I think in these do or die short series, I'd go with an 8 man pen. This will allow Farrell to have a fairly quick hook on both his starters and relievers. Outside of maybe Sale, I can see the starter being pulled after 5 innings, even if he is pitching decently.

[notin]

My #3 is Fister because I don't think Porcello or ERod has a big game in him. But I'm happy with whoever Farrell picks.

 

And expectations rear their ugly head.

 

Porcello pitched worse than expected. Fister pitched better than expected. Therefore Fister must be better than Porcello.

 

But the reality is Porcello has still pitched better than Fister.

[oldtimer]

I think in these do or die short series, I'd go with an 8 man pen. This will allow Farrell to have a fairly quick hook on both his starters and relievers. Outside of maybe Sale, I can see the starter being pulled after 5 innings, even if he is pitching decently.

 

Imagine the discussion if the manager pulled a starter after 5 that was doing well and put in a reliever who gave up a couple of quick runs. It might get ugly.

[Kimmi]

And expectations rear their ugly head.

 

Porcello pitched worse than expected. Fister pitched better than expected. Therefore Fister must be better than Porcello.

 

But the reality is Porcello has still pitched better than Fister.

 

You are, of course, correct.

[Kimmi]

Imagine the discussion if the manager pulled a starter after 5 that was doing well and put in a reliever who gave up a couple of quick runs. It might get ugly.

 

Oh, no doubt. I'm not talking about pulling someone who has pitched a no hitter through 5 if we're up by 3 runs or more. But if it's a 2-2 tie, and the starter walks the first batter in the 6th, then perhaps. The decision will not be cut and dry, but in general, a reliever will have better success than a starter going through the order for the 3rd time. And we have a strong pen.

[Bellhorn04]

Every managerial move makes some difference. Just like every play of the game makes some difference. My points are that managerial moves do not affect the game nearly as much as some people think they do. Nor does any one single play.

 

My argument is against statements like 'Farrell cost us the game by leaving a pitcher in too long' or 'Beni's boneheaded running cost us that game'. Yes, those moves/plays did contribute to the outcome of the game. So did the seemingly insignificant strike one or ball one first pitch of the game.

 

Certainly one could argue that every single pitch in a baseball game contributes to the outcome. I understand that reasoning but I don't fully accept it. Historical facts show that in a major league baseball game the 2 teams will score about 9 runs on average. That's the way the way the game is set up. So nothing that leads to runs will happen on most of the 300 pitches or so thrown in the game. That means that there are only a limited number of pitches that actually impact the outcome of the game.

 

The statements you referenced - 'Farrell cost us the game by leaving a pitcher in too long' or 'Beni's boneheaded running cost us that game' - I agree that statements like these are usually wrong.

 

I do believe there are some games where the decision of when to pull the pitcher can be crucial to the outcome. I also realize that you can never really prove whether that was the case or not.

 

Didn't mean to hijack the subject matter of this thread.

[SoxHop]

And expectations rear their ugly head.

 

Porcello pitched worse than expected. Fister pitched better than expected. Therefore Fister must be better than Porcello.

 

But the reality is Porcello has still pitched better than Fister.

 

Since when?

[Bellhorn04]

Since when?

 

Statistically Porcello and Fister have been pretty close.

 

At this point I'd probably rather have Fister start than Porcello. But that's probably based mostly on gut feelings and the Recency Effect.

[Kimmi]

Statistically Porcello and Fister have been pretty close.

 

At this point I'd probably rather have Fister start than Porcello. But that's probably based mostly on gut feelings and the Recency Effect.

 

That's exactly where I am. Gut feelings. Do they work? LOL

[Bellhorn04]

That's exactly where I am. Gut feelings. Do they work? LOL

 

With Porcello or Fister I think you're basically rolling the dice. They might pitch 7 innings of 1 run ball or they might give up 4 in the first.

[FredLynn]

And expectations rear their ugly head.

 

Porcello pitched worse than expected. Fister pitched better than expected. Therefore Fister must be better than Porcello.

 

But the reality is Porcello has still pitched better than Fister.

 

If Porcello going to be our #3 (or #4-they would both get one game) maybe he should start game 2, especially if we manage to win game 1. His home/away splits are quite different: 5.43/3.67 ERA and OPSa: .860/.781. Pom could start game 3, ERod game 4. You have to pitch a #3 sometime; why not game 2? Sale will pitch games 1 and 5 (if we get to game 5). Who knows...maybe Porcello still has something left.

Edited October 1, 2017 by FredLynn

[Kimmi]

If Porcello going to be our #3 (or #4-they would both get one game) maybe he should start game 2, especially if we manage to win game 1. His home/away splits are quite different: 5.43/3.67 ERA and OPSa: .860/.781. Pom could start game 3, ERod game 4. You have to pitch a #3 sometime; why not game 2? Sale will pitch games 1 and 5 (if we get to game 5). Who knows...maybe Porcello still has something left.

 

I will trust Farrell and management to make the right call. They have all of that data, plus data that we are not privy to, not to mention all of the non-statistical information, available to them to make the best informed decision.

 

Of course, even the right decision doesn't always work.

[notin]

If Porcello going to be our #3 (or #4-they would both get one game) maybe he should start game 2, especially if we manage to win game 1. His home/away splits are quite different: 5.43/3.67 ERA and OPSa: .860/.781. Pom could start game 3, ERod game 4. You have to pitch a #3 sometime; why not game 2? Sale will pitch games 1 and 5 (if we get to game 5). Who knows...maybe Porcello still has something left.

 

That is hopefully how Farrell is thinking. Maybe not the home-road splits per se, but some logic where his pitchers have had or should have an advantage...

[FredLynn]

That is hopefully how Farrell is thinking. Maybe not the home-road splits per se, but some logic where his pitchers have had or should have an advantage...

 

Using "Farrell" and "thinking" in the same sentence is by definition an oxymoron.