Jump to content
Talk Sox
  • Create Account

Recommended Posts

Posted
Agreed. It's not like 14 inning games were killing baseball.

 

Baseball plays 162 games for a reason. It takes about that many games to take the luck factor out of the equation. Adding the 5th WC team negates some of that.

 

At least MLB is not like the NBA and NHL where more teams make it than don't.

 

I don't like wild cards in general, but I can see having one. It evens out the playoff format when you have three divisions and gives a chance to a team that was the runnerup in a tough division. But I think it has gone too far and it cheapens the regular season.

  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Old-Timey Member
Posted
I don't like wild cards in general, but I can see having one. It evens out the playoff format when you have three divisions and gives a chance to a team that was the runnerup in a tough division. But I think it has gone too far and it cheapens the regular season.

 

While I see your point, it also makes September baseball relevant in more cities. That is a big deal even if you ignore the economic impact…

Posted
I don't like wild cards in general, but I can see having one. It evens out the playoff format when you have three divisions and gives a chance to a team that was the runnerup in a tough division. But I think it has gone too far and it cheapens the regular season.

 

I agree. often a second place team is better than 1 or 2 of the division winners, and I suppose a 3rd place team might be from time-to-time, but where's the limit?

 

It's all about money, and these game bring in big TV and gate money, and teams staying in the hunt longer fills up more seat so it's likely here to stay or even get worse, too.

Old-Timey Member
Posted
I’m going to say I told you so, because I told you so. Once again a blown save by a closer not named Whitlock. Yes Whitlock looks good as a starter, but tonight was just a WASTED effort, and now won’t pitch for what another 5 days, or so? The Sox have no closer, and will continue to lose games, because they have no closer. Well they do have a closer, but Cora won’t use him, so instead of using Whitlock 3-4 games a week they decide to use him 1-2, and the bullpen has to come in for 4 innings anyway. Most on here want Whitlock to start, so I guess it doesn’t bother to lose games when the Red Sox decide to score a few runs, and actually get a lead in the 8-9 innings. So once again I told you so. This is all on Cora, and Bloom.
Community Moderator
Posted
I’m going to say I told you so, because I told you so. Once again a blown save by a closer not named Whitlock. Yes Whitlock looks good as a starter, but tonight was just a WASTED effort, and now won’t pitch for what another 5 days, or so? The Sox have no closer, and will continue to lose games, because they have no closer. Well they do have a closer, but Cora won’t use him, so instead of using Whitlock 3-4 games a week they decide to use him 1-2, and the bullpen has to come in for 4 innings anyway. Most on here want Whitlock to start, so I guess it doesn’t bother to lose games when the Red Sox decide to score a few runs, and actually get a lead in the 8-9 innings. So once again I told you so. This is all on Cora, and Bloom.

 

How many appearances would you have Whitlock make if he was in the pen? He would have pitched how many innings on Tuesday? How many on Wednesday?

Old-Timey Member
Posted
How many appearances would you have Whitlock make if he was in the pen? He would have pitched how many innings on Tuesday? How many on Wednesday?

 

He would pitch 3-4 times a week with more than 4 outs like last Sat, and would have pitched the 9th last night if the situation would have been the same. I’m confident that the Sox would be 5-0 instead of 0-5 right now if Whit had been the closer in those 5 xtra inning losses.

Old-Timey Member
Posted
He would pitch 3-4 times a week with more than 4 outs like last Sat, and would have pitched the 9th last night if the situation would have been the same. I’m confident that the Sox would be 5-0 instead of 0-5 right now if Whit had been the closer in those 5 xtra inning losses.

 

Even if they keep Whitlock in the rotation, why not Houck?

 

When was the last time Houck pitched in a game not started by Rich Hill?

Community Moderator
Posted
Even if they keep Whitlock in the rotation, why not Houck?

 

When was the last time Houck pitched in a game not started by Rich Hill?

 

My preference would be Houck as the closer too, just because I think Whitlock has the higher ceiling as a starter of the two.

Old-Timey Member
Posted
I agree. often a second place team is better than 1 or 2 of the division winners, and I suppose a 3rd place team might be from time-to-time, but where's the limit?

 

It's all about money, and these game bring in big TV and gate money, and teams staying in the hunt longer fills up more seat so it's likely here to stay or even get worse, too.

 

The most egregious example is the 1993 Giants, who won an incredible 103 games and missed the postseason while the 97 win Phillies got to continue…

Old-Timey Member
Posted
My preference would be Houck as the closer too, just because I think Whitlock has the higher ceiling as a starter of the two.

 

I’m sure Whitlock’s history will keep his innings down, but having Houck handle the 9th and Whitlock as a 3-9 out setup guy would be the best solution for this year.

 

Give Seabold a crack at facing the first 18 hitters for a bit…

Verified Member
Posted
He would pitch 3-4 times a week with more than 4 outs like last Sat, and would have pitched the 9th last night if the situation would have been the same. I’m confident that the Sox would be 5-0 instead of 0-5 right now if Whit had been the closer in those 5 xtra inning losses.

 

There's no f***ing way he pitches 3-4 times a week unless he's limited to one inning stints.

Old-Timey Member
Posted
There's no f***ing way he pitches 3-4 times a week unless he's limited to one inning stints.

 

That’s what a true good closer does with an occasional 4 out save. How’s things working now with Whitlock starting? No matter how good he’s done how many innings has the BP had to pitch behind him?

Old-Timey Member
Posted
Even if they keep Whitlock in the rotation, why not Houck?

 

When was the last time Houck pitched in a game not started by Rich Hill?

 

I’m all for giving Houck a shot as the closer, but I just think Whitlock would be more reliable in that role, and not to mention effective.

Posted (edited)
Last night , I think Cora should have stuck with Robles. If you want the guy to be the closer , you have to have faith that he can get it done. You can't yank him every time he gets in a jam. It's not as if Diekman is Josh Hader or Billy Wagner. And it's pretty clear that Whitlock is going to be a starter. I don't know what the plan is for Houck. Edited by dgalehouse
Community Moderator
Posted
Last night , I think Cora should have stuck with Robles. If you want the guy to be the closer , you have to have faith that he can get it done. You can't yank him every time he gets in a jam. It's not as if Diekman is Josh Hader or Billy Wagner. And it's pretty clear that Whitman is going to be a starter. I don't know what the plan is for Houck.

 

Diekman is a guy with control issues so it seems like he should only be brought in for clean innings.

Community Moderator
Posted
Remember a long time ago when Rich Hill was in the pen for us and pitched pretty well? He should do that again.
Old-Timey Member
Posted (edited)
diekman is a guy with control issues so it seems like he should only be brought in for clean innings.

 

s t r e a k m a n!

Edited by Old Red
Old-Timey Member
Posted
Remember a long time ago when Rich Hill was in the pen for us and pitched pretty well? He should do that again.

 

Remember Jen Rich Hill came here and made 4 starts in a row with ungodly effectiveness and bosoxmal kept insisting the Sox needed to re-sign him and I kept thinking “not at his (Hill’s) age.”

 

That was 7 years ago…

Community Moderator
Posted
Remember Jen Rich Hill came here and made 4 starts in a row with ungodly effectiveness and bosoxmal kept insisting the Sox needed to re-sign him and I kept thinking “not at his (Hill’s) age.”

 

That was 7 years ago…

 

Who's Jen?

Community Moderator
Posted

I'm a 2010-12 Rich Hill fanboy.

 

They couldn't bring him back in 2016 because the rotation was stacked with too much talent and they couldn't promise him a 5th spot.

 

Matt Barnes, Clay Buchholz, Joe Kelly, Craig Kimbrel, Tommy Layne, Rick Porcello, David Price, Noe Ramirez, Robbie Ross Jr., Junichi Tazawa, Koji Uehara, and Steven Wright

Posted
I'm a 2010-12 Rich Hill fanboy.

 

They couldn't bring him back in 2016 because the rotation was stacked with too much talent and they couldn't promise him a 5th spot.

 

Matt Barnes, Clay Buchholz, Joe Kelly, Craig Kimbrel, Tommy Layne, Rick Porcello, David Price, Noe Ramirez, Robbie Ross Jr., Junichi Tazawa, Koji Uehara, and Steven Wright

 

He pitched about 33 innings, total, in those 3 years.

 

I'd prefer the 4 start season of 2015, where he got almost that amount of IP in just that one season.

Community Moderator
Posted
He pitched about 33 innings, total, in those 3 years.

 

I'd prefer the 4 start season of 2015, where he got almost that amount of IP in just that one season.

 

I prefer when my players are still underground.

Posted

So, Hill is coming up on 1200 IP over his 18 years as a pitcher in MLB.

 

Even the oft-injured Big Nate has that many by age 32.

Community Moderator
Posted
So, Hill is coming up on 1200 IP over his 18 years as a pitcher in MLB.

 

Even the oft-injured Big Nate has that many by age 32.

 

Hill has had a pretty damn good late career.

Posted
I’m all for giving Houck a shot as the closer, but I just think Whitlock would be more reliable in that role, and not to mention effective.

 

We really shouldn't be having closer tryouts at this point . That is a lack of planning. Not a good way to operate.

Posted
Hill has had a pretty damn good late career.

 

I don't get the pitch count thing with Rich. Is it age -related or is he hurt?

 

He doesn't pitch like he's hurt or tired.

Posted

We just wasted Hill & Houck for two games, now.

 

Time to name Houck the closer and take the training wheels off Hill.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
The Talk Sox Caretaker Fund
The Talk Sox Caretaker Fund

You all care about this site. The next step is caring for it. We’re asking you to caretake this site so it can remain the premier Red Sox community on the internet.

×
×
  • Create New...